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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by enumerating what data is exposed (per-report ingest windows, row counts, earliest/latest dates, error windows) and clarifies that it reflects the current backfill state, going beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds useful information. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only coverage tool, the description fully communicates the tool's scope and the practical use case. It explains what data is included, why it matters, and what to infer from the result (which years are loaded vs. backfilling), making it self-sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameter details, and no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 that this tool reports the current availability of GrantConnect data, including ingest windows, statuses, row counts, and date ranges. It distinguishes itself from sibling auction/grants tools by framing itself as the coverage check to run before date-bounded queries.

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 an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Use this before trusting a date-bounded answer about Australian grants.' It does not name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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