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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds transparent details: results are sorted by soonest closing, days remaining are computed at request time, and it enumerates the exact data fields returned. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 sentences: first states the core purpose and source, second lists the returned fields, third explains filters and the user question. Perfectly front-loaded with no redundant content.

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 list tool with no output schema, this description is comprehensive: it lists all fields returned, defines the ordering and dynamic date computation, includes filtering options, and provides a motivating question. It equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.

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 all 6 parameters at 100% coverage. The description echoes filter options (category, agency, title) but does not add new semantics or syntax details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists Australian Commonwealth grant opportunities still open for application, specifically GrantConnect opportunities with future close dates. It uses specific verbs and resource names, and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on 'open' opportunities and directly answering the question 'what Australian federal grants can I still apply for'.

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 description provides clear context: it is for open grants sorted by soonest-closing, with specific filters. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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