search_open_grants

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true (results may change). The description adds valuable behavioral context: it uses stemming, natural-language matching, and searches across program names, descriptions, focus areas, and beneficiary types. No contradictions with annotations. Some limitations (like rate limits) are not mentioned but not critical.

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 two paragraphs, about 5-6 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope. Every sentence adds value: scope, primary designation, search capabilities, query syntax, and browsing behavior. No fluff or repetition.

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 11 well-documented parameters, no output schema, and appropriate annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, query variants, and browse option. It does not describe return format explicitly, but for a search tool this is acceptable. Overall sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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% with thorough parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, except for query syntax notes and the ability to browse by omitting query. This is helpful but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the tool finds open grant opportunities and RFPs by topic, and identifies itself as the primary tool for grants. It specifies the scope (172K+ foundation programs and federal Grants.gov), using a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_foundation_grants or search_funders.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (primary tool for finding grants) and query syntax. It offers examples for natural language, quoted phrases, and exclusion. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or alternative tools, though the 'primary' implication is strong.

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