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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety. The description adds context that it returns 'official identifiers and source URLs' and covers search behavior, but does not disclose details like data freshness or rate limits. Given the annotations cover key behavioral aspects, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary use case is front-loaded, and the prohibition list is concise. Every word earns its place.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description covers the essential guidance for a search tool: when to use it, what it returns, and what it does not do. Minor gaps like pagination or data source authority are not critical given the existing structured metadata.

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 description coverage is 100% with both parameters (query and limit) fully documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the schema carries the full burden. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states the specific verb 'find' with the resource 'current or forecasted U.S. federal grant opportunities by topic', and mentions it returns official identifiers and source URLs. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like analyze_federal_grant and get_federal_grant_evidence_pack, which imply analysis and evidence gathering rather than search.

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 explicitly states 'Use this when...' and lists disallowed use cases ('Do not use it to decide eligibility, predict an award, write an application, or submit anything'). It clearly defines when to use the tool and what it is not for, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for those other purposes.

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