USAspending Scraper: Federal Contract Awards & Recompete Finder

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, non-idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely useful context annotations cannot carry: it runs on the caller's own Apify account, costs $0.002 per contract found, empty runs aren't charged, and spend is capped by run_max_charge_usd. However, it doesn't disclose runtime behavior, pagination/truncation of the result set, or failure modes when no filter matches.

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 short paragraphs: the first front-loads what the tool does and what goes in and out, the second covers execution, cost and caps. Nearly every sentence earns its place; the pricing sentence is dense but necessary given the per-result billing model.

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 19-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does what's needed: it summarizes the result row shape (incumbent, UEI, amount, agency, end date, link, top competitors) and explains the billing and spend-cap model. An agent can decide whether to call this and predict the response without further information.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 19 parameters in detail, including enums, examples, defaults and ranges. The description's 'Input: keywords, NAICS, PSC, agency, state or set-aside' largely restates what the schema provides and adds no syntax or format guidance beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource — 'find US federal contract awards and contracts ending soon (recompete leads) from USAspending.gov' — and names the two operational modes (awards vs. recompete radar). An agent can tell this apart from adjacent lead-generation tools without opening the schema, since the sourcing domain and entity type are explicit.

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?

It states the use case (award discovery and recompete lead generation) and the mode descriptions inside the schema clarify which mode serves which intent. It also notes the at-least-one-filter constraint. What's missing is an explicit 'use X instead when…' against the closest sibling, grants_finder, which targets a different but easily confused funding type.

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