US federal contract actions

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the whole load. It does disclose the default behavior (unfiltered results are ranked by size) and the aggregation semantics of by=ticker, which is real behavioral information, but it says nothing about result limits, the default time window, or what the returned records contain.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads what the tool returns before the optional modes. No padding, though the parenthetical '(by=ticker)' makes one clause slightly dense.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still cannot tell what 'listed' does, what the default lookback is, or what shape the results take. The main query modes are covered, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is only 25% (only ticker is documented in the schema). The description usefully explains by=ticker (sum by listed parent company) and ticker (filter to one ticker), but leaves 'days' and especially the boolean 'listed' completely unexplained in both description and 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?

States a specific verb+resource (contract actions from USAspending) and even names the ranking ('largest') and data source. The domain is unique among the financial-market siblings, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 sketches two modes ('summed by listed parent company' via by=ticker, or 'filtered to one ticker') but never says when to choose one over the other or what the bare no-argument call returns. Usage is implied by the mode clauses, not articulated.

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