federal_awards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a lookup (implying read-only), names the data source, and lists the returned fields. However, it does not mention data freshness, potential delays, match semantics, or output format beyond the field names, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action, resource, source, and data included; the second adds a relevant use case. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 low complexity (4 params, 1 required, no nested objects) and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It names the data source, what data is returned, and the intended use case. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the mention of amounts, agencies, and dates, though it could be slightly clearer that the result is a list of award records.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it suggests recipientName refers to a U.S. company and highlights contracts/grants/loans, which partially overlaps with the awardTypes parameter values. It does not clarify maxResults or sinceFiscalYear beyond what the schema already provides.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Look up') and clearly identifies the resource ('U.S. company's federal contracts, grants, and loans') plus the data included (amounts, agencies, dates). It also names the authoritative source (USAspending.gov), making the tool easily distinguishable from sibling tools like business_search and watchlist_screen.

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 specifies a clear context: 'Useful for B2G sales intel and due diligence.' However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternative sibling tools for related use cases. The usage context is implied from the use-case sentence, but no exclusions or routing is given.

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