search_subsidies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It adds valuable traits such as being a free tool and the default limit behavior, but it omits other behavioral details like sorting behavior, pagination via offset, or the open_only filter. This is moderate disclosure, not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase adds information (scope, filters, limit, free). No redundant or filler content.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains the core search behavior and main filters, but it does not address result ordering, pagination, or how to handle no filters. Sibling differentiation is also missing, which is important given the large toolset.

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 only 44%, so the description must compensate. It names four key filters (keyword, prefecture, category, minimum amount) and clarifies the limit default, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it leaves several parameters like sort, offset, and municipality_code unexplained, so it only partially bridges the low coverage.

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 Japanese central and municipal subsidies with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the general search scope but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_municipality_grants or find_supplementary_grants, so it misses the top score.

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 gives useful usage context—filters can be combined, and results are capped by the limit parameter with a default. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, so it falls short of strong usage guidance.

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