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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the output type (new grants and trials) but omits critical details like whether results are paginated, how 'new' is defined (e.g., by creation date), any rate limits, or side effects. This leaves significant ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 very concise (one sentence plus audience note) and front-loaded with the core action. However, given 13 parameters, it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool has 13 optional parameters and no output schema. The description fails to mention output format, ordering, limits, pagination, or how 'new' is determined. Compared to sibling 'whats_changed_since', it lacks clarity on what differentiates this digest from other change-tracking tools.

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?

The schema covers 77% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific context beyond what the schema provides, missing an opportunity to highlight key filters like 'kind' or 'days'.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it returns 'New grants + new trials' filtered over a number of days, and specifies the use case as 'weekly-digest payload' for BD teams. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'search_records' (general search) and 'new_funding' (likely broader).

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 context by stating 'Best for BD teams' and 'weekly-digest payload', implying it is used for periodic reporting. However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use this tool or mention any alternative tools among the siblings.

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