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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key filtering behavior (only currently-open, AI-enriched grants; closed/suspended/unpublishable never returned) and indicates ranked ordering. It also clearly states the return format (id, title, funder, deadline, amounts). It doesn't mention rate limits or error handling, but for a read-only search tool this is a reasonably complete behavioral picture.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return-linkage, and filtering behavior. It is front-loaded with the main action and does not waste words. The inclusion of 'GrantIQ search:' is slightly redundant but acceptable. Overall, it is highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description compensates by explicitly listing the returned fields and the filtering behavior. It provides enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively: what it returns, how to use it with `fetch`, and what is excluded. Minor gaps like pagination details or ranking rationale are not critical for basic usage.

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 provides robust descriptions for both parameters (query matches title/summary/description; limit has range and default). The description adds little beyond what the schema already states, leaving the baseline at 3. It does mention the ranked list indirectly, but parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema.

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 UK & EU grants via free-text query. It specifies the resource (grants), the action (search/find), and the scope (UK & EU, currently-open). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `fetch` tool by noting that it returns summaries for later full-detail retrieval, making its role in the workflow unambiguous.

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?

Usage guidance is implied through the free-text query description and the explicit advice to pass returned references to the `fetch` tool for full detail. While it doesn't mention alternative tools like `find_opportunities` or state when not to use search, the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select this when a free-text search is needed and a fetch is desired afterward.

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