grants

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral disclosure. It also reveals ordering ('newest first') and optional filtering, giving the agent useful expectations beyond a bare resource name. It does not detail edge cases like unknown agents or pagination, but these are minor for a read-only list operation.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds the filter and ordering details, and closes with the important safety trait 'Read-only.' Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: what is returned, the optional scope, the ordering, and the non-destructive nature. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by explaining that the single 'agent' parameter is optional and filters to one agent. This adds meaning that the raw schema does not convey. It could specify the expected identifier format, but the core semantics are clear.

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 identifies the resource ('grants in force right now') and the operation (listing them), including sorting order and an optional agent filter. It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from obvious siblings like grant_log or grant, though it does not name or contrast those alternatives explicitly.

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 phrase 'in force right now' establishes when this tool is appropriate — for current grant status rather than historical or future grants. The optional agent filter is also highlighted, giving the agent a clear sense of how to scope the query. It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives, but the temporal constraint provides useful context.

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