federal-contract-intel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses it covers $10T+ in federal spending and requires no API key. However, it does not mention rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or whether it's read-only. The description is adequate but could be more 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 three sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and supported use cases. Every sentence provides distinct information without redundancy or fluff.

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 absence of an output schema, the description reasonably covers the key return elements (award details, agency breakdown). It could be slightly improved by hinting at the output format or structure, but it is largely sufficient for agent understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by detailing the return value (total obligated amount, award count, top awards with fields, agency breakdown). This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the parameter descriptions alone.

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 returns US federal contract and grant intelligence for any company via USASpending.gov, listing specific outputs (total obligated amount, award count, top awards, agency breakdown). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing narrowly on federal contracts/grants.

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 notes the tool is useful for procurement research, competitive intelligence, vendor due diligence, and government contractor analysis. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, the context implies its specific domain, providing adequate guidance.

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