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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it only says the result is 'aggregate'. It does not disclose the aggregation dimensions (per year, per region, per beneficiary type), whether figures are totals or averages, or whether the underlying data is a static snapshot, all of which shape how an agent should interpret and present the numbers.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be spelled out, and a no-argument read tool has a small surface area. The only real gap is the missing explanation of what the aggregates are broken down by, which the output schema may partially cover.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 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?

States a specific verb and resource: aggregate statistics on Horizon Europe funding attracted by Italian universities, centres and SMEs. The word 'aggregate' implicitly separates it from the sibling tools that return project-level detail (search_cordis_funded_projects, get_cordis_project_consortium), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: reach for this when you want summary figures rather than individual projects. However, the description never states when to prefer it over search_cordis_funded_projects, nor any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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