Federal Spending by State

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. Description adds that results are sorted by spending amount and cites source, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination or rate limits. With annotation coverage, the added value is moderate.

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 efficient sentences with no extraneous information. Every word adds value, front-loading the core action and result.

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 complexity (2 simple params, full schema coverage, output schema present), the description covers purpose, filters, and result characteristics. It could mention data update frequency or limitations, but is largely complete for this straightforward tool.

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?

Both parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds 'Default: current year' for fiscal_year and lists award_type options, but does not substantially supplement 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('US federal spending by state') with filter options (contracts, grants, all) and output behavior (sorted list of all states). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like spending.federal.agency and spending.federal.awards.

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?

Provides context ('regional economic analysis and policy research') but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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