list_upcoming_deadlines

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 describes a read operation ('List') but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity of listing deadlines across multiple programs, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, parameter details, and expected return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic intent.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds some semantic context by mentioning 'within the next N days' (mapping to 'days_ahead') and 'NSF, ERC, KRF funding programs' (mapping to 'source'), but it doesn't fully explain the parameters' roles, defaults, or enum values. It compensates partially but not completely for the coverage gap.

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: 'List upcoming grant application deadlines within the next N days across NSF, ERC, KRF funding programs.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('grant application deadlines'), and scope ('within the next N days across NSF, ERC, KRF funding programs'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_grant_detail' or 'search_grants', which might also involve grants but serve different purposes.

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 its siblings ('get_grant_detail' and 'search_grants'). It implies usage for listing deadlines within a time frame and specific programs, but lacks explicit instructions on alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. This leaves the agent to infer usage without clear direction.

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