Get Prime Subawards

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: results are paginated, a summary block should be read before the data rows, and limit is capped at 250.

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 front-loads the core purpose, uses a compact sibling comparison, and uses bullet lines for the parameter notes. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information without padding.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and only one required parameter, the description covers direction, key parameter constraints, pagination, and the summary block. It gives the agent everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 descriptions cover 0% of the parameters, so the description carries the burden. It explains uei's format and role and notes limit's max of 250, but it leaves offset, date_from, and date_to undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get every subaward THIS company (as a prime) paid out'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_prime_relationships by explicitly naming the opposite direction, so an agent can select among related tools.

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 explicitly says this tool is the opposite direction from get_prime_relationships and tells the agent to 'pick based on which direction you're asking'. This is a clear when/alternative rule with no inference required.

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