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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: case-insensitive fragment matching, optional country filter, return fields (PIC number, legal name, country, website, entity type), and coverage scale (72,000+ organisations). It stops short of noting result limits or edge cases, but those are partially documented in the schema and output schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then search behavior, return fields, and use cases in four tight sentences. Each sentence adds distinct value, and there is no redundancy with the title or schema.

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?

For a three-parameter read-only search with fully documented schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers what, how, what-it-returns, and when-to-use. Nothing essential for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so all three parameters (name, limit, country) are already documented with types, constraints, and examples. The description restates the name-fragment and country-filter behavior but adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find universities, research institutes, companies, and SMEs registered in CORDIS as participants in EU-funded research.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling CORDIS project tools by focusing on organisations and naming the exact entity types returned. An agent can immediately understand what the tool does and how it differs from project_search.

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?

It states concrete use cases ('partner discovery, consortium research, and EU research landscape mapping'), giving clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the organisation-specific scope and filters imply separation from project-focused sibling tools.

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