Search NSF awards (NSF Award Search API)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the upstream API, the implicit SBIR/STTR filter applied by default, and NSF's OR-between-words keyword behavior. Rate limits, pagination behavior (offset caps at 2999), and result shape are not disclosed.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the read-only signal and zero filler. The closing 'Every result links to NSF' is the weakest sentence but still conveys an output detail, which matters given no output schema.

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?

Covers source, default filter, and keyword syntax for an 8-parameter tool, but with no output schema and half the parameters undocumented, it says nothing about result fields, page-size limits, or how include_abstract changes the response. Adequate but with clear gaps for a search tool of this breadth.

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 coverage is only 50%, and the description compensates where it matters: it explains that sbir_sttr_only defaults on (why results are SBIR/STTR-heavy) and clarifies NSF's multi-word OR semantics beyond the schema's generic 'supports AND, OR, NOT' note. It leaves rows, offset, and include_abstract entirely to the bare 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?

States a specific verb (Searches) and resource (NSF awards) plus the exact backend (NSF Award Search API on Research.gov). The resource scope inherently separates it from search_nih_awards, search_open_opportunities, and agency_sbir_summary without the agent opening any 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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative appears. The default SBIR/STTR scoping hints at a typical use case but is framed as behavior, not routing guidance, so the agent gets no help choosing between this and its four siblings.

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