search_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return structure {total, items, attribution}, but does not describe search semantics beyond keyword matching, default behavior, pagination, or slowness of abstract search. The description adds some value but leaves important runtime behavior to the 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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists filters economically, and closes with the return shape. There is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential orientation: scope, filters, and the top-level response fields. It could be more complete by mentioning the optionality of query or directing an agent to get_project for single-project lookups, but the core calling context is present.

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 the schema already documents all parameters in detail. The description groups filters (ERC, funding scheme, country, minimum funding, start date) in a readable way but adds no new syntactic or semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Search'), a specific resource ('EU-funded research projects'), and the programme scope (Horizon Europe, H2020, FP7). It also names the key filters and the return shape, distinguishing it from the siblings get_project and list_erc_schemes.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you want to search across multiple projects by keyword or filter. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with get_project for retrieving a single project or list_erc_schemes for scheme metadata, so the guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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