Search NIH awards (NIH RePORTER)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context: the default activity-code filter (R43/R44/R41/R42) that silently shapes results, the row granularity caveat that a multi-year project can appear more than once, and that every result links back to RePORTER. It stops short of noting rate limits, auth, or pagination behavior.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: scope, then default-filter gotcha, then result-shape caveats. 'Read-only' is a slight duplication of the readOnlyHint annotation, but otherwise each line carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, 11 parameters, and low schema coverage, the description covers purpose, default filtering, and result granularity but omits pagination guidance (offset max 14999), the []-for-all-activity-codes escape hatch beyond the schema, and any auth/rate-limit expectations. Adequate for selection, thin for correct invocation.

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 only 36% across 11 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate, yet it only restates the activity_codes default that the schema already documents. Nothing is said about text matching, limit/offset bounds, institutes, org_states, or fiscal year filters, leaving most parameters without added meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Searches funded NIH projects in NIH RePORTER v2') and immediately pins the default scope to SBIR/STTR activity codes, which naturally separates it from siblings like search_nsf_awards and search_open_opportunities. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement (funded projects, not open opportunities) and the default-filter note, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives are given despite four siblings in the same family. The agent must infer routing from the 'NIH funded projects' framing.

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