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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the matching is lexical so weak fits are flagged, most proposals never declared an RFP, and it returns both declaring proposals and text-nearest proposals. This is substantive disclosure not present in structured fields.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences each carry distinct information (match mechanics, weak-fit caveat, no-fit fallback, sibling routing). It is dense but nearly every clause earns its place; slightly long for a single-parameter tool.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it explains what the best fits show (Foundation asks, grant appetite, declaring proposals) and the nearest-text proposals. Combined with the no-RFP fallback and sibling pointers, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description restates the input as 'a project idea' but adds no format, length, or syntax guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Given a project idea, find which Canton Dev Fund RFP(s) it fits') plus a secondary outcome (crowdedness). It explicitly names the siblings it is not (list_rfps, detect_builder_overlap), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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 explicit routing: 'For the full RFP list use list_rfps; to include ecosystem projects as well as proposals use detect_builder_overlap.' It also handles the negative case ('If no RFP fits, the idea can still be filed as an individual initiative'), leaving nothing to inference.

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