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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with 'Find'. The description adds that opportunities are 'current' and terms are 'live', implying time-sensitive data, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant words. Every phrase earns its place.

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 parameterless read-only lookup tool, this description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does, when to use it, and what kind of output to expect (grant opportunities and their terms). No output schema exists, but the description covers the essential information.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so the description is not expected to explain parameters. It instead clarifies what the tool returns (grant opportunities and live terms), which adds value in place of parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and clearly identifies the resource ('current Angels for Agents grant opportunities') including their 'live terms'. It also states the purpose ('before preparing a pitch'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle eligibility, submission, validation, and milestones.

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 explicitly indicates when to use the tool with 'before preparing a pitch', giving clear temporal context. While it doesn't name alternative tools or state exclusions, the sibling names (e.g., submit_agent_pitch, validate_agent_pitch) make the workflow context obvious.

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