grant_deadline_plan

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 that weekends and federal holidays are automatically handled, and it lists the three return milestones. This gives a clear picture of behavior without needing the tool to be invoked. The absence of any mention of side effects or permissions is acceptable for a calculation tool, but it does not specify how invalid dates are handled, so a slight deduction.

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 concise, with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by a compelling one-liner ('A deadline is not a plan.') and a clear explanation of outputs. The parameter documentation is included inline without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence adds value.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return structures. It covers the core behavior, including holiday handling, and provides parameter guidance. It could mention edge cases like past deadlines or formatting requirements, but for a tool of this complexity it is nearly complete.

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 provides no descriptions, but the description compensates by explaining that 'deadline' is the funder deadline and by enumerating valid values for 'application_type' (loi, proposal_new, proposal_renewal, federal, report). While the date format for 'deadline' is not specified, the parameter name and context are clear enough.

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's function: 'Work backward from a funder deadline to the dates that actually matter.' It specifies the exact outputs (start drafting, internal review copy due, packet complete) and differentiates itself from sibling tools by focusing on planning rather than simple date arithmetic or resource valuation.

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 description clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever a user has a funder deadline and needs to determine actionable internal milestones. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools like 'business_days_between' or 'add_business_days', but the context is strong enough that an agent would likely select it appropriately. A small deduction for not stating when not to use it.

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