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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by warning that end dates can be extended, renewed, supplemented, or updated, which is crucial behavioral context for interpreting results.

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 primary purpose, and every clause adds meaning. The caveat about monitoring is concise and valuable.

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?

Given the relative simplicity of the parameters and the strong annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does and the key caveat. The only gap is the incomplete parameter descriptions, but overall context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 50%: 'days' and 'limit' have descriptions, while 'query' and 'organization' do not. The description partially compensates by mapping 'matching a topic or organization' to those parameters, but it doesn't add detail about their expected formats or constraints.

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's function: finding active NIH projects matching a topic or organization whose project period is ending soon. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nih_new_grant_awards or search_grants, which focus on other aspects.

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 on how to interpret results ('monitoring cue only') and what the end date does not prove, which guides appropriate use. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the guidance is sufficient for most use cases.

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