grant_budget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior—calculating on the correct base—and explains the exact meaning of MTDC (excludes equipment and subaward amounts above $25k). It also warns about the inflationary effect of using the wrong base. It doesn't detail output structure, but the presence of an output schema hints that is covered elsewhere.

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 tight: three sentences that lead with the main purpose, then explain the key parameter, and end with a valuable warning. No filler or redundant information.

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?

Given 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the most important decision—indirect_base—and the calculation logic. It doesn't elaborate on the exact output format or the relationship between fringe and personnel, but the output schema likely provides those details. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has zero descriptions, so the description compensates by fully explaining indirect_base and its allowed values ('mtdc'/'tdc'). Other parameters like travel, supplies, personnel, and rates are self-explanatory from their names. This addresses the only ambiguous parameter.

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 opens with 'Build a grant budget with fringe and indirect calculated on the correct base,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like grant_deadline_plan or business_days_between, which serve different grant-related purposes.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (building grant budgets) and offers critical guidance on selecting indirect_base, including the difference between MTDC and TDC and the common pitfall of using total direct costs. It does not explicitly exclude other tools, but none are budget calculators, so the use case is clear.

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