GrantSonar

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

Discloses that the action is reversible and requires authentication, adding value beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true already indicates mutation). Does not detail exactly what happens to the grant in the feed.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides key information: purpose, reversibility, auth requirement.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, reversibility, and auth. Sufficient for agent to understand usage, though could mention if the grant is only hidden or removed.

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 100% and already describes both parameters clearly. Description repeats the default for dismissed and the restore option, adding minimal new information.

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?

Clearly states the tool dismisses or restores a grant from the user's active feed. Verb 'dismiss' is specific and distinguishes from siblings like save_grant or search_grants.

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?

Mentions 'Requires your API key' but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. Provides context but lacks exclusion criteria.

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

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses that prior content is snapshotted, required authentication (paid API key), and heavy metering. No contradictions with 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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose, followed by essential usage constraints. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 tool's complexity (AI drafting, snapshotting, paid key, metering), the description covers all critical aspects. It also references sibling tools and provides expected return value.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds useful context for section_key (reference to get_my_application) and document_type (explains enum values and default). application_id gets minimal but sufficient explanation.

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 generates an AI first-draft for one section of the user's application, grounded in external data. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_application_section by being the AI drafting tool.

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?

Provides important usage context: requires a paid API key and is heavily metered, implying use sparingly. Also directs users to get_my_application for section keys. Lacks explicit comparison with alternatives for manual editing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying the exact content returned (synopsis, eligibility, deadlines, award amounts). It does not contradict 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?

The description is a single well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and includes key details. No extraneous information or redundancies.

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 simple single-parameter input, full schema coverage, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. No missing contextual details.

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 describes the required grant_id parameter with coverage 100%. The description adds the context that the UUID comes from a search_grants result, but this is minimal additional meaning beyond the schema's description.

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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('single grant opportunity'), and the identifier ('GrantSonar grant_id (UUID)'), and lists key fields returned (synopsis, eligibility, deadlines, award amounts). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_grants (which returns lists) and get_my_application (a different entity).

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 implies when to use the tool (when you have a grant_id and need full details) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The sibling list suggests alternatives, but the description lacks direct guidance on selection.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and no destructiveness. Description adds that it returns status and every section draft. Does not mention error scenarios or response format, but sufficient given 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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema, description covers what it returns (status + sections). Could specify response structure or pagination, but adequate.

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 for each parameter are clear; description adds context that they are alternative lookup keys and that grant_id resolves to 'your application for that grant'. Schema coverage is 100%.

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?

Clearly states that the tool fetches a specific grant application with status and all section drafts, using application_id or grant_id. Differentiates from siblings like list_my_applications (listing) and get_grant (grant info).

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?

Specifies the two identifiers (grant_id or application_id) and notes API key requirement. Could explicitly mention when to use this vs list_my_applications (e.g., when you need details of a specific application).

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false. The description adds that an API key is required and lists the fields returned. No contradictions or missing critical behavioral traits like pagination, but the tool is simple with no parameters, so this is sufficient.

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 sentence that is extremely concise, front-loads the purpose, and contains no extraneous words.

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 no output schema, the description explains the returned fields. It lacks details on pagination, ordering, or limits, but for a simple list-all tool with zero parameters, this is almost complete.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by stating what is returned, though parameter semantics are not applicable.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'grant applications', the scope 'your organization', and enumerates the returned fields (id, grant title, status, etc.). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'list_my_matches' or 'search_grants'.

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 mentions the prerequisite 'Requires your API key', but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_grants' or 'get_my_application'. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns specific fields and requires an API key, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentences that are clear and to the point. The first sentence establishes purpose and personalization; the second lists contents and requirements. No redundancy or unnecessary details.

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?

The description lists returned fields (tier, score, reasons, pipeline status, URL) despite no output schema. It covers key behavioral context and parameter use. However, it omits details like default limit or pagination (handled by schema defaults). Overall sufficient for a filtered-list 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 description coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 it lists the organization's personalized scored grant matches, identical to the dashboard. It specifies the returned data (tier, score, reasons, pipeline status, URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_grants (broader search) and get_grant (single grant).

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 implies when to use (to get your matches) and notes the API key requirement, but does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives like search_grants. Usage context is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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

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

Annotations indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the action is 'reversible', which goes beyond annotations. It also notes the API key requirement, providing useful behavioral context.

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, each adding value: purpose, reversibility, and auth/reference. No fluff, well front-loaded.

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?

Covers all key aspects: purpose, reversibility, auth, parameter source. With no output schema, return values are not required. Could mention that setting status overwrites previous, but not essential.

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 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds meaning: it explains the 'grant_id' should come from 'list_my_matches or search_grants', and clarifies the default status. This enriches the schema definitions.

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 saves a grant to the pipeline or sets its status, with a specific verb ('save'/'set') and resource ('grant'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'dismiss_grant' which removes, and 'get_grant' which is read-only.

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 mentions that it 'requires your API key' and 'mirrors the dashboard Save button', providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dismiss_grant' or when not to use it.

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

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

The description discloses the search method (semantic similarity with keyword fallback) and output fields, adding value beyond annotations which already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. No contradictions.

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 three concise sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description adequately covers search behavior, data source, and output. Minor gaps like exclusion of pagination details are acceptable for a search tool with openWorldHint.

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 already provides good descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description further explains how to use the query parameter in context (plain-English description) and confirms the limit range, adding moderate value.

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 searches open grant opportunities in a specific corpus (federal, state, foundation) using semantic similarity and keyword fallback. It lists the output fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_grant or list_my_matches.

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 explains how to formulate queries (plain-English description) and the search method, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like get_grant for specific grants.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the prior draft is snapshotted to version history first, making changes recoverable. It also notes the API key requirement. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise: two sentences and a cross-reference. Every sentence adds value—purpose, recovery behavior, API requirement, and guidance on section keys. No wasted words.

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 tool has 4 parameters, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main points but lacks information about the return value or success/error handling. A complete description would mention what the tool returns upon success.

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 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the 'mode' enum ('replace (default) overwrites; append adds to the end'), referencing 'get_my_application' for 'section_key', and clarifying that 'application_id' comes from 'list_my_applications'. This enriches the schema definitions.

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 action ('Write content'), the resource ('section of YOUR grant application'), and the modes ('replace or append'). It distinguishes itself by referencing the sibling tool 'get_my_application' for discovering section keys, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 mentions 'Requires your API key' implying authentication is needed, and suggests using 'get_my_application' to see available section keys. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'draft_application_section', nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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