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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses pricing ($2 USDC per call via x402), the refund condition ('if too few sources answer you are not charged'), and the async nuance that the core source is checked before queueing and charging. It also enumerates the output contents (fit score, rationale, eligibility checks, deadlines, links, checklist, PDF), which is genuinely behavioral detail.

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?

Purpose and process are front-loaded, and the pricing/refund caveat is placed at the end where it belongs. It is one dense run-on sentence, so some clauses (checklist, PDF, links) are packed together, but little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well by listing what the report contains. Combined with the annotation and billing/refund disclosure an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the webhook/async delivery path is left largely to the schema.

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 75%, so the schema documents most parameters, but the description adds real meaning for `async` (core source checked before the job is queued and charged) and ties `pdf` to the promised artifact. It does not explain the required `description` field beyond 'describe who you are', leaving the 25% gap partly uncovered.

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 names a specific verb+resource+source: 'Federal grant matching for your organisation... we search Grants.gov... rank the open and forecasted grants'. An agent can tell exactly what it produces. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling `grants` tool, which an agent choosing between the two would want.

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 implies the trigger ('describe who you are') and hints at cost/refund conditions, but never states when to prefer this over the sibling `grants` tool or when not to use it. Usage is inferable from the input requirement rather than explicitly guided.

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