search_gov_spending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is 'FREE, no payment and no key,' includes access context, and explains the return fields (recipient, agency, amount, dates, NAICS, provenance URL, record_id). It also implies a read-only search behavior and its role as a precursor to paid records, though it does not mention rate limits or pagination explicitly.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with the free/nokey access note and followed by the tool's purpose, return values, usage guidance, and argument details. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundant wording, though it is slightly longer than the minimum needed.

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?

With only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential aspects: what the tool searches, what it returns (a list of fields), how to use it (query), and the relationship to get_record. It does not detail the exact response structure or edge cases, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema only provides the property name and type with no description, but the description's 'Args:' section adds meaning: 'query: keyword(s) to search, e.g. "navy radar".' This clarifies the parameter's purpose and provides an example, adding significant value beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's verb and resource: 'Search US federal spending' across specific sources (USAspending, SAM.gov, Grants.gov). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by naming the exact domain and data sources, making it unambiguous which tool to select for federal spending searches.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use and an alternative: 'Use this to find out whether OSF holds what you need before spending anything, then call get_record with a record_id to buy the full record.' It also lists concrete use cases like govcon market intelligence and vendor due diligence, giving clear context for selection.

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