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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two highest-stakes traits: Bearer sp_live_... authentication and a $0.03/call charge, plus that data is 'live ongoing'. It stops short of return shape, pagination, or rate-limit behavior, and the '1 to 15' item cap lives only in the schema.

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?

A single dense sentence plus a parenthetical cost/auth note, front-loaded with the resource and geography. Mild marketing framing ('Radar', em-dash list) but no sentence is wasted.

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 three-optional-parameter query tool with no output schema, the definition covers what the tool returns at a category level (grants, D-day, agencies, application URLs) plus auth and cost. Only secondary details such as result ordering or default limit are unaddressed, and the limit default is in the schema.

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 limit, apiKey, and keyword are fully self-documenting, and the description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond implying keyword relevance through examples in the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already does all the work.

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?

Names a specific resource and scope: live ongoing South Korean government startup/SME grants and R&D subsidies, plus the fields returned (D-day countdowns, supervising agencies, application URLs). The domain is clearly distinct from siblings like query_public_procurement_bids or query_kamco_public_auctions, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools an agent should pick instead for non-Korean or non-grant data. The only conditioning is a pricing/auth note, which is behavioral rather than usage routing; the agent must infer that 'Korean startup grants' is the trigger condition.

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