Search grants

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, but the description adds real operational context not in annotations: cursor/has_more pagination protocol, the warning that open status can lag so response_deadline should be checked, and that grant notices carry no state. The one weak spot is the phrase 'open grants of any age', which is vaguer and looser than the schema's precise deadline-based definition (no deadline counts as closed).

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?

Front-loaded trigger, then a compact filter summary, pagination rule, a caveat, output formatting, and exclusions — each block earns its place. The parenthetical filter list mildly duplicates the schema's field descriptions but functions as a single-glance summary rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description still covers the one thing the schema cannot: the pagination loop (has_more/next_cursor with identical filters) and result presentation. For a six-parameter, zero-required search tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly on the first and subsequent pages.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by flagging keyword as title-only, restating the 1-180/1-50 bounds as quick reference, and adding the strategy hint 'pass several NAICS codes in one call' that is absent from the schema. No added detail on how posted_within_days interacts with open, hence not a 5.

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?

Opening line names a specific verb (search) and resource (US federal grants/funding opportunities), and the closing line explicitly separates it from search_contracts and search_jobs. An agent can route correctly without inspecting any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger ('when the user wants US federal grants'), explicit exclusions with named alternative tools for contracts and jobs, plus operational guidance to batch NAICS codes in one call. Nothing is left to inference.

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