list_erc_schemes

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

No annotations are provided, and the verb 'List' plus 'present in CORDIS with their grant counts' conveys a read-only enumeration and the shape of the returned data. It could add explicit no-side-effect/no-pagination statements, but for a zero-param controlled-list tool this is sufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 tight sentence front-loads the action and resource, then adds the purpose clause. Every part earns its place; no fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what is returned (ERC schemes and grant counts) and why to call it (to populate the funding_scheme filter). No critical gaps.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the parameter baseline is 4. There are no parameter details to add; the description instead explains how the output will be consumed, which is useful context.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), defines the exact resource (ERC funding schemes present in CORDIS), and includes the output content (grant counts). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling search_projects and get_project by framing the result as the filter vocabulary for search_projects.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: to obtain valid values for the funding_scheme filter in search_projects. It does not explicitly spell out when-not-to-use or list alternatives, but the intended workflow is unambiguous.

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