find_supplementary_grants

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides useful details: 'Heuristic: matches base title tokens', 'Returns up to 30', and 'Free'. However, it does not state whether it's read-only, how data is sourced, or what the response structure looks like, leaving some gaps.

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: three short sentences plus 'Free'. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds heuristic and output limit details. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 its simplicity (3 params, no output schema) and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, matching logic, and result limit. It lacks explicit output format and error conditions, but for a straightforward search tool, this is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 67% (central_grant_id and prefecture have descriptions; limit does not). The description adds an example for central_grant_id and the 'Returns up to 30' note relates to limit behavior. Yet it does not systematically explain parameters beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but adds little extra.

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's purpose: 'search for municipal grants that supplement [a central J-Grants subsidy id]'. The verb 'search' and the specific resource (supplementary municipal grants) distinguish it from sibling tools like get_municipality_grants or search_subsidies. The example with national and city-level program names further clarifies the intent.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you have a central grant id and want municipal supplements. The 'Heuristic' note signals approximate matching, setting expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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