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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description focuses on what they cannot express: a hard page cap of 25, a reachable-result ceiling of 100, and the provenance caveat that grant text comes from funders. That last note usefully warns about data quality, though pagination/offset interaction is only partly covered.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then result-size limits, then the data-provenance caveat. No filler, though the 'same filters as the Discover page' framing assumes the agent knows that page.

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 12-optional-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, result caps and data provenance, and the schema fully carries parameter detail. The only gap is that the shape of a returned match record is never hinted at, which matters somewhat without an output 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 description coverage is 100%, so all 12 parameters including sort defaults, enum meanings and offset limits are already documented. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the public GrantCue grant catalog') and scopes it to federal, state, local and foundation opportunities. It is clearly a query tool distinct from get_grant/get_funder by name, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

'with the same filters as the Discover page' implies the intended use case, and the 25-per-page / 100-result ceiling hints at when to narrow rather than page. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-siblings guidance (e.g., use get_grant for full opportunity detail, search_funders for organizations).

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