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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful 90-day coverage window, but it claims 'up to 25 results per call' while the input schema allows a maximum of 50 and a default of 20. This inconsistency misleads the agent about the actual limit and undermines the behavioral disclosure.

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 and front-loads the purpose and sources. It is concise overall, but the incorrect limit claim is a minor structural flaw that forces the agent to reconcile conflicting information with the schema.

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 search tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides key context: sources, date window, and result contents. The limit inconsistency is a gap, but pagination and defaults are covered by the schema, so the description is otherwise sufficient.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters. The description mentions keyword, jurisdiction, agency, and date, which maps to existing parameters, but it adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('federal and state grant and incentive programs'), and explicitly names the data sources (grants.gov plus state economic development agencies) and the filtering dimensions (keyword, jurisdiction, agency, date). This fully distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are about regulatory changes, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for grants/funding programs while siblings are for regulatory changes, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, stopping short of full when/when-not guidance.

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