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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and reach of the call are covered. The description adds only the 'open and forecasted' scope, matching the schema's default statuses; it says nothing about result caps, pagination, or that detailed fields arrive only for a subset of results.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded and filters trailing. There is no filler, though the brevity comes at the cost of the guidance noted above.

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, open-world search with no output schema, the agent still lacks essentials: default result count, the 50-result ceiling, and how includeDetails changes the payload. The annotations cover safety, but the description leaves the result-shape contract under-specified.

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 already documents most parameters, and the description merely restates three of them (keyword, agency, category). It adds no format hints for aln, eligibilities, statuses, or the limit ceiling, so it neither compounds nor compensates for the remaining gap.

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 ('Find') and resource ('federal grant opportunities') with the main filter facets (keyword, agency, category). The scope phrase 'open and forecasted' further narrows it, making it distinguishable from grant_details, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the discovery step before grant_details, but no alternative or precondition is stated. Nothing says when to prefer this over federal_register_search or when to skip straight to grant_details.

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