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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose pagination, output size, what counts as 'currently-open', or any other behavioral details beyond the basic filter implied by the phrase.

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 is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and its scope, making it appropriately concise for a simple list 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?

For a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description combined with the schema is nearly complete. It only lacks explicit clarification of what 'currently-open' means and how the type filter changes the returned agencies, but these are largely inferable or covered by the 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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'type' parameter with a description and default value, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema already covers it.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('agencies') with a clear scope ('currently-open opportunities'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools that target grants, contracts, awards, deadlines, or details rather than agencies themselves.

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 'currently-open' qualifier implies the intended use case: retrieve agencies with active opportunities. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over related search tools, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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