search_grants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the search functionality and return fields but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if there are rate limits or authentication requirements, how results are ordered, if pagination is supported beyond the 'limit' parameter, or what happens when no results are found. For a search tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, search criteria, and return information. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loaded with key information. There's no wasted text, though it could potentially be split into two sentences for even clearer structure.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and some parameter context but misses behavioral transparency, full parameter explanations, and output details. For a search tool that returns grant information, the description should ideally mention result format, ordering, or error handling to be complete enough for 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. It mentions searching 'by keyword, PI name, or institution' which partially explains the 'query' parameter, and lists data sources (NSF, ERC, KRF/NRF) which maps to the 'source' enum. However, it doesn't explain 'year_from', 'year_to', or 'limit' parameters at all. With 5 parameters and only partial coverage of 2, the description adds some meaning but doesn't adequately compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 research grants across specific funding agencies (NSF, ERC, KRF/NRF) using various criteria (keyword, PI name, institution) and returns specific grant information (titles, award amounts, PIs, institution info). It distinguishes from 'get_grant_detail' (which likely retrieves details for a specific grant) and 'list_upcoming_deadlines' (which focuses on deadlines rather than searching existing grants). However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from 'get_grant_detail' beyond the search functionality.

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 implies usage context by listing searchable criteria and data sources, suggesting this tool is for finding grants across multiple agencies. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'get_grant_detail' (e.g., 'use this to find grants matching criteria, then use get_grant_detail for detailed information on a specific grant') or 'list_upcoming_deadlines' (e.g., 'use this for active grants, use list_upcoming_deadlines for future opportunities'). The guidance is present but not explicit about alternatives.

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