grants_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions search and default status but omits details like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or response structure, which are critical 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and lists filters efficiently without any superfluous words.

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?

While the description covers the basic purpose and filters, it lacks details on output, pagination, default rows, and error behavior. Without an output schema, the agent must infer return values, leaving it incomplete for a search tool with 6 optional parameters.

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% (4/6 parameters have descriptions). The description lists filter types and default status, adding context beyond the schema for keyword and oppStatuses, but does not explain the 'rows' parameter or keyword usage, leaving some gaps.

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 'Search Grants.gov federal grant opportunities' and explicitly distinguishes from contracts on SAM.gov, which is a specific verb+resource that differentiates it from sibling tools like sam_search_opportunities.

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 the default status ('forecasted + posted') and lists filters (keyword, CFDA, agency, opportunity number), giving context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools beyond the SAM.gov distinction.

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