get_grant_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'full detail' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., award amount, dates, investigators), whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks essential behavioral context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the action, resource, and sources. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'full detail' entails, behavioral traits like read-only nature or error conditions, and doesn't compensate for the absence of an output schema. For a retrieval tool with no structured support, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'by ID' and sources (NSF, ERC, KRF), which aligns with 'grant_id' and 'source' parameters, but doesn't clarify the format of 'grant_id' (e.g., numeric, alphanumeric) or the meaning of the enum values beyond listing them. The description adds some meaning but insufficiently compensates for the low schema 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'full detail of a specific grant by ID', specifying the sources (NSF, ERC, KRF). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_upcoming_deadlines' and 'search_grants' by focusing on retrieving detailed information for a single grant rather than listing or searching multiple grants. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings in the description text itself.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_grants' or 'list_upcoming_deadlines'. It mentions the sources but doesn't explain scenarios where this tool is preferred, such as when you have a specific grant ID versus needing to browse or filter grants. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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