grants_get_opportunity

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

Beyond the 'readOnlyHint' and 'openWorldHint' annotations, the description reveals critical behaviors: the structure of the 'agency' object (sourcing real agency from agencyDetails, not raw agencyName), the handling of nonexistent ids (returning found:false), and the fact that Grants.gov returns hollow 200s which the tool detects. No contradictions with annotations.

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 moderately lengthy but well-structured: core purpose first, then field list, then a detailed note about agency, then error behavior. Every sentence adds value, though minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly details return fields (including nested objects), edge cases (null agency name, nonexistent ids), and error handling. It provides complete context for an agent to use 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?

With 100% schema coverage and only one parameter, the schema already describes it as 'Grants.gov opportunity id (numeric string)'. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond that, meeting the baseline of 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 opens with 'Fetch full detail for a single grant opportunity by id', clearly stating the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'grants_search' and 'sam_get_opportunity' by emphasizing the single-id detail retrieval.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to get full detail by id) and explicitly explains the behavior for nonexistent ids ('never a fabricated grant'). While it does not list alternatives, the sibling list and the tool's specificity make usage clear.

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