search_nsf_awards

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes 'public API' but does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, return format, or any side effects. The phrase 'historical and active awards' is a scope note, not behavior detail.

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 short sentence, which is efficient in length but sacrifices critical information. It is not verbose, but under-specification makes it less useful than a slightly longer, more informative description would be.

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?

The tool has two simple parameters and an output schema, but the description provides no usage context, parameter semantics, or behavior details. Given the sparse input schema (no parameter descriptions) and lack of annotations, the description is inadequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0% and the description mentions no parameters. It does not explain what 'keyword' should contain, how 'max_results' affects output, or the meaning of the default value. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which is insufficient.

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 'Search NSF Awards (public API) for historical and active awards' clearly identifies the verb (Search), resource (NSF Awards), and scope (historical/active). It distinguishes from the sibling 'search_grants' by specifying NSF and public API, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_grants' or 'list_open_source_relevant_grants.' There is no mention of context, exclusions, or preferred use cases; usage is only implicit from the tool's name and generic search verb.

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