bc_search_grants_gov

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states the return type (dict) and lists fields, which is good. However, it does not mention any side effects (likely none), rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or error handling beyond 'error message'. The presence of an output schema (context signal) helps, but the description lacks depth on behavior.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a return type line. It front-loads the main action and includes no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides essential 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 the tool has 8 optional parameters, a description that mentions only 'keyword, agency, or other criteria' is somewhat vague. The output schema is present (context signal), but the description does not clarify how multiple filters interact (AND/OR), default behavior, or search scope. It is minimally complete for a search tool but lacks some contextual details.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description only adds 'keyword, agency, or other criteria' and does not elaborate on parameter usage, formatting, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. With full schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 searches grants.gov by keyword, agency, or other criteria, and returns opportunity listings. It uses a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'grants.gov', and the tool's domain (grants) distinctly sets it apart from all sibling tools which focus on biomedical/drug/gene data.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or when not to, nor does it mention alternatives. However, given the distinct domain of grants.gov compared to all sibling tools (which are about drugs, proteins, studies, etc.), usage is implicitly clear. No exclusions or preconditions are provided, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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