search_grants

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'With provenance' is vague and does not explain how the search behaves (e.g., live Grants.gov fetch, caching, return format, or rate limits), and no other behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, conveying the core purpose in a single sentence. However, the phrase 'with provenance' is somewhat vague and could be expanded, though it does not add significant length.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with multiple siblings and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral details, leaving the agent without adequate information for correct invocation.

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 description mentions 'keyword', which maps to the required parameter, but offers no explanation of 'status' or 'max_results'. With 0% schema_description_coverage, the description does not compensate for these undocumented parameters.

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 searches open U.S. federal grant opportunities on Grants.gov by keyword. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_nsf_awards, which targets NSF awards, and get_grant_details, which is for retrieving details of a specific grant.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or the difference between this and related search tools like search_nsf_awards or list_open_source_relevant_grants.

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