usa_spending_by_award

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description includes a 'search' verb matching the readOnlyHint=true annotation. It adds context on award type groups but does not disclose response format, pagination details, or rate limits. Annotations already cover safety, so this is adequate but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with purpose, and includes necessary detail on award types without fluff. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete for a search tool but lacks information about return format and pagination behavior. The presence of limit and page parameters implies pagination, but not stated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, providing descriptions for all 12 parameters. The description adds valuable detail for award_type (groups and codes) not present in the schema, enhancing usability. Baseline is 3; this addition justifies a 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches federal spending awards, listing types and filters. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on aggregations (e.g., by agency, recipient).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description indicates when to use (search awards with filters) and provides award type groups with codes. It is implicit about when not to use, but sibling names suggest different aggregation levels; explicit guidance would improve clarity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.