federal_thresholds

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that results are in USD and include provenance (citation, effective date, superseded value), which is useful. However, it does not explain error behavior for invalid names, whether all thresholds are returned when no name is given, or any access requirements. No annotations exist, so this is a partial gap.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and return content, the second lists the valid names. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple tool with no output schema, the description covers the main elements: it explains what is returned (thresholds with provenance) and enumerates valid inputs. It omits the optionality of the 'name' parameter and the behavior when omitted, which an agent would have to infer from the schema default. That is a minor but real gap.

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 0% with only a generic 'name' parameter. The description directly compensates by enumerating the five valid names, giving the agent concrete allowed values. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a concrete resource ('federal procurement thresholds (USD)'), and clarifies the output includes source provenance. It lists the valid threshold names, distinguishing this from sibling tools focused on opportunities, NAICS, and solicitations.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The purpose is implied by the name and content, but there is no statement such as 'use when you need threshold amounts' or 'instead of market_snapshot_tool'. Thus it relies on inference.

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