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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses data source (360Giving), licence handling (share-alike excluded, each award carries licence), cost ($0.20 USDC per call), and return structure. It does not mention limitations like data freshness or rate limits, but the disclosed details are substantial.

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 fairly long but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and listing key output fields. It includes cost and return format. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is organized and informative.

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 complexity of the tool (multiple data fields) and no output schema, the description provides a detailed return structure. It covers giving stats, recent awards, and live grants. However, it omits explanations for 'match_quality' and 'coverage' fields, leaving some gaps.

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 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'name', with examples. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema examples. Baseline is 3 as schema coverage is high and description adds no extra 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 aggregates a UK funder's giving history from the 360Giving corpus, including grants made, typical award, size distribution, yearly pattern, recent awards, and live grant schemes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on funder-level data rather than grant search or company profiles.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like uk_grants_search or uk_grants_match. It hints at a use case ('Who actually funds things like yours') but lacks clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions or prerequisites.

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