grants_search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details such as OR-matching for keywords, phrase quoting returning 0, and default statuses. No contradiction 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 front-loaded with purpose and filtering, then provides keyword behavior details. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but it is well-structured.

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 could mention what the search results contain (e.g., grant opportunity summaries). It covers filtering and defaults but lacks information on result structure or pagination. The annotations partially compensate with openWorldHint.

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%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful nuance for the keyword parameter (OR matching, phrase quoting behavior), but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema provides. It briefly mentions narrowing with cfda/agency/oppStatuses, which is already implied.

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 verb 'Search' and resource 'Grants.gov federal grant opportunities', and distinguishes from SAM.gov contracts, which is valuable given sibling tools from SAM.gov. It also lists key filtering capabilities.

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 detailed guidance on keyword usage and narrowing with other parameters, and distinguishes from SAM.gov contracts. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over the sibling grants_get_opportunity or other alternatives.

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