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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey: the 25-row page cap, that a total count is returned, and that offset drives pagination. Missing rate-limit or auth notes, but the result-shape disclosure is valuable given there is no output schema.

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 tight sentences, no filler, front-loaded with purpose then return shape then filter guidance and the handoff to get_funder. Every sentence 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?

With 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description supplies the missing pieces: what a call returns, how to page, how to combine filters, and which sibling to use for detail. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 descriptions cover 63% of parameters, and the description adds meaning beyond that: region is a slug sourced from list_filters, max_amount is NZD, and difficulty is a first-class filter. It reinforces key semantics rather than merely restating schema text.

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 (Search) and resource (New Zealand community grant funders), plus the scope of results (up to 25 compact rows with total count). It also names the sibling get_funder as the follow-up for full profiles, so an agent can separate it from the other funder tools.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: combine region/org_type/purpose/max_amount/difficulty filters, use offset to page, and switch to get_funder for a full profile. It doesn't explicitly say when to prefer suggest_funder or flag_funder_detail over search, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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