finance_grant_program_discovery

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. The description does add useful routing and scoping behavior, but it does not clarify what side effects 'grant_program_discovery' may have or what the dispatcher routing entails.

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 short and front-loaded with the action name. The scoping note and Args list add necessary context without unnecessary fluff. It could be slightly more informative, but it is concise and well-organized.

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?

The description omits the core purpose of grant program discovery, expected input details, and any relationship to sibling tools. The output schema may cover return values, but an agent still cannot reliably decide when to use this tool or what to pass without more domain-specific explanation.

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 carries the burden. It provides generic but helpful meanings: message is a 'Free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' However, it does not explain what structured inputs are valid or what kinds of objectives this action supports.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Run the finance domain agent action `grant_program_discovery`'), but it never explains what grant program discovery actually accomplishes. The purpose is largely inferred from the tool name, and the description does not differentiate it from sibling finance_grant_* tools or from dispatch_domain_agent.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The routing note ('under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') describes mechanics, not when this tool should be selected over alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or what distinguishes it from related finance grant actions.

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