nonprofit.search

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source (IRS Form 990 + BMF) and return fields (EIN, name, location, etc.) but omits details like pagination behavior, rate limits, or error handling. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: first sentence states purpose and data source, second lists search fields and return data. Front-loaded with key information.

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 search tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the tool's purpose, searchable fields, and return fields. Missing details on pagination and multiple filter combination, but sufficient for basic 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 83%, with most parameters documented. The description adds value by listing searchable fields in prose and explaining the subsection code (3 = 501(c)(3)). It provides context beyond the schema.

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 it is a search tool for US 501(c) nonprofit organizations via ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer, with specific search fields (name, EIN, state, NTEE code, subsection code). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'nonprofit.screen' by focusing on search rather than screening.

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 for searching nonprofits but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'nonprofit.screen'. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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