grant_lead_times

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output includes lead times and reasoning, which is some behavioral detail, but it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what kind of data is returned. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the mere existence of the tool.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core subject (lead times) and adds a helpful qualifier (with reasoning). It is not verbose, but the lack of a verb makes it slightly cryptic. Still, it earns its place and is appropriately sized.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description provides only a hint of the tool's function by referencing grant_deadline_plan. For a tool with no parameters, this might suffice, but it does not explain what 'lead times' mean in this context or how this relates to other siblings. The description is minimally complete but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. The mention of lead times and reasoning is sufficient given there are no inputs to clarify.

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 'The lead times behind grant_deadline_plan, with the reasoning for each' clarifies the tool's subject matter by referencing grant_deadline_plan, but it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'retrieve', 'get'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by indicating it provides lead times and reasoning, but the purpose is not stated as an actionable operation.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The reference to grant_deadline_plan implies it relates to that sibling, but it never states when this tool should be preferred or excluded. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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