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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the meaningful result cap of 100, but says nothing about authentication requirements (a subscriber token is required per the schema), pagination, rate limits, or whether results are ranked or truncated when more than 100 matches exist — a critical behavior for a capped search.

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?

Two compact clauses with no filler; the result cap and filter capabilities are front-loaded. The leading 'PRO.' is an unexplained fragment that costs a beat of comprehension but not much space.

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?

Five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 40% schema coverage. The description should at minimum explain include_forecasted, the delimiter format for agencies, and the subscriber-token requirement; instead it covers only keywords, agencies, and eligibilities, leaving an agent unable to reason about half the inputs.

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 only 40%, but the description earns real credit by decoding eligibility codes ('12' nonprofits, '23' small business, '25' others) that the schema leaves as a bare string, and by clarifying 'agencies' as agency codes. It leaves include_forecasted completely unexplained and only gestures at the keyword semantics ('several keywords').

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 makes clear this returns grants matched against multiple keywords, capped at 100, with agency and eligibility filtering. The verb is implicit rather than stated ('Up to 100 grants for several keywords') and it never contrasts itself with the sibling grant_search, so an agent can't tell from the text why this variant exists — 'PRO' is the only hint.

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?

No statement of when to prefer this over grant_search or closing_soon, and no note that it is the premium/subscriber tier beyond the cryptic 'PRO' token. The only usage-adjacent signal is the access_token field in the schema, which the description never reinforces.

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