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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description adds useful return-value context (matched_program, confidence, action URL, rationale). However, it says 'one of 5 program landing pages' while listing 6 program values, a minor internal inconsistency that mildly muddies the output contract.

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?

Front-loaded with examples and use context, which is good, but it is bloated and redundant: query examples and the returned fields are each effectively enumerated twice within one paragraph-run, wasting space an agent doesn't need.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does enumerate the key returned fields, so an agent knows what to expect. It is essentially complete, aside from the 5-vs-6 program count discrepancy and lack of confidence/fallback behavior.

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 both parameters (query, funder_type) are already documented. The description restates example queries but adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail for funder_type beyond the schema's enum and 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?

States a specific verb (classifies/match) and resource (institutional-funding intent to program landing pages), and names concrete outputs (/grants/{slug} URL, funding-ask range, NTEE code). An agent can distinguish it from match_donor_intent and route_query by the stated audience and output.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage: 'Use when an AI agent is helping a foundation officer or institutional funder evaluate Wounded Warriors,' with query examples. It only implies the alternative via 'More specific than the generic /grants/ page' rather than naming a sibling tool to use instead, so it stops short of 5.

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