list_public_goods_funding

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

With no annotations, the read-only nature is implied by the verb 'List' and the description conveys the category scope. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits like whether results are filtered by default focus, pagination, or external source behavior; the output schema covers return shape, but no further behavioral context is added.

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 a single sentence, starts with the action verb, and packs the category scope plus examples efficiently with no filler. Minor redundancy between 'public-goods funding' and 'funding opportunities' is negligible.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance relative to sibling tools. For a two-parameter tool with no annotations, this one-sentence description leaves significant decision context unanswered, especially around 'type_filter' and tool selection.

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 0% property description coverage, and the description never mentions the 'focus' or 'type_filter' parameters. The platform examples loosely suggest possible categories but do not explain accepted values, defaults, or how the filters combine, so the agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as donation, sponsorship, quadratic funding, and open-source public-goods funding opportunities, with concrete platform examples. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_grants, which focus on narrower grant 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_open_source_relevant_grants or search_grants. The description only states what it does, leaving the selection decision to the agent without exclusion or preference context.

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