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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: data provenance from the latest Form 990-PF or Schedule I, ordering by largest givers first, 10 results per page, and the source_form "990" marker for Form 990 grantmakers.

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 action and scope, then adds relevant search dimensions and result behavior. It is somewhat dense but every sentence contributes useful information, with no major repetition or 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 search tool with rich schema descriptions and annotations but no output schema, the description supplies enough context about data sources, ranking, pagination, and source marking. It could say more about returned fields or total result counts, but an agent can invoke it correctly from what is provided.

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 four parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces the key filters by describing search by name, city, state, EIN, recipient state, and accepting-applications status, but it does not add syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: search foundations, with a clear scope limited to those having a public GrantCue profile built from Form 990-PF or Schedule I data. It distinguishes this from searching grants by focusing entirely on foundation records and even notes how Form 990 grantmakers are included as marked source_form "990".

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 explains what can be searched and how results are ordered, giving implied usage context, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus siblings like get_funder or search_grants. There are no exclusions or alternative-routing instructions.

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