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

The annotations already cover idempotency and destructiveness, and the description adds useful behavioral context: search scope ('current or forecasted') and output type ('official identifiers and source URLs'). It does not explicitly discuss side effects or rate limits, but nothing in the description strongly contradicts the annotation hints, including readOnlyHint: false.

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 with no filler; the primary usage condition is front-loaded and the exclusion list is compact. Every sentence adds selection or behavioral 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?

For a simple 2-parameter, 1-required search tool, the description plus schema and output schema cover what the agent needs: when to use it, what it accepts, and what it returns. The negative usage instructions further prevent misuse.

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 the schema already fully documents `query` and `limit`. The description reinforces that `query` is a topic, but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('find') with a specific resource ('U.S. federal grant opportunities') and adds scope ('current or forecasted', 'by topic'). The return-value note ('official identifiers and source URLs for follow-up analysis') also distinguishes it from the sibling tools that analyze grants or build evidence packs.

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?

Opens with an explicit when-to-use conditional ('when the user needs to find current or forecasted U.S. federal grant opportunities by topic'). It also provides a clear negative list ('Do not use it to decide eligibility, predict an award, write an application, or submit anything'), giving the agent both inclusion and exclusion guidance.

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