Grants.gov Scraper: Federal Grants, NIH & NSF Awards API

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable non-schema behavior: it runs a specific Apify Actor on the caller's own account, costs $0.003 per grant found, uncharged runs when nothing is found, and that spending is capped by run_max_charge_usd. It omits async/timeout failure behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short paragraphs: purpose and I/O first, then execution/pricing/cap context. Front-loaded and free of filler, though the parenthetical '(Grants.gov scraper)' and repeated pricing framing add a little redundancy.

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 17-parameter scraper with no output schema, the description supplies the output shape (one row per grant with agency, dates, amount, eligibility, link), cost model, and spending cap. Cost, dispatch and pagination subtleties across sources are mostly covered; only runtime/timeout and failure behavior are left to the schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 17 parameters thoroughly. The description adds only the broad filter categories (agency, date, amount) and the output row fields; it doesn't explain any parameter in more depth than the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource set ('find US federal funding: open and forecasted Grants.gov opportunities plus funded NIH and NSF awards') and distinguishes the three sources' semantics (opportunities to apply to vs. awards already made). That differentiation from sibling tools like federal_contract_finder is explicit within the text.

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?

It states when to use it ('Use this to find US federal funding') and gives the required input (keywords) plus optional filters, with source semantics explaining Grants.gov vs. NIH/NSF selection. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative such as federal_contract_finder for contracts, so it stops 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.