Search open federal funding opportunities (Grants.gov)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real context beyond them — that coverage spans forecasted and posted records and that each result links to its Grants.gov page — but says nothing about pagination behavior or result size, which is the main behavioral unknown for a search 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the read-only signal and then purpose, usage and output note. Efficient overall, though the leading 'Read-only.' partially duplicates readOnlyHint=true already supplied as structured data.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns; it does so only in one line ('every result links to its Grants.gov page') and never explains pagination across rows/offset, which matters for a 6-parameter search tool. Purpose and basic usage are covered, but the operational guidance is thin.

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 67%: agency, status, keyword and eligibility are well documented in the schema (eligibility even enumerates all codes), while rows and offset carry no descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all; the undocumented pair are self-evident pagination fields with defaults and bounds, so this is baseline-adequate rather than deficient.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — searching forecasted and posted funding opportunities on Grants.gov — plus the backing API (search2) and result shape. It implicitly separates itself from the award-search siblings by scoping to 'open opportunities,' but it never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

'Use it to find open SBIR/STTR solicitations and other grants' gives a clear intended scenario, which is stronger than nothing. However, there is no when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling tools (search_nih_awards, search_nsf_awards, agency_sbir_summary), so the agent must infer the boundary between opportunity search and award search.

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