nih_search_projects

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly doesn't need to restate that. It adds return field details, which is useful but not a behavioral trait. There is no disclosure of pagination behavior, data freshness, or rate limits. Given the read-only annotation, the description adds some value but lacks deep behavioral context, matching the baseline 3.

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 two tight sentences: the first states the search dimensions, the second states return fields and use cases. Every clause adds value with no filler. It is well-front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Given the tool has 17 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a strong overview including filter dimensions, return fields, and use cases. The schema handles the detailed parameter semantics. It could mention pagination or data source, but the existing context is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats high-level filter categories (e.g., 'disease area' maps to spending_categories, 'investigator' to pi_name) but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It groups concepts usefully but doesn't compensate for any schema gaps since there are none.

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 the specific verb 'Search' with a clear resource: 'NIH-funded research projects'. It enumerates the many filter dimensions (text, disease area, investigator, institution, state, agency, spending category, grant type, funding amount) and explicitly contrasts with siblings by focusing on projects rather than publications. It also names the return fields, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 provides clear use cases: 'find research grants for any disease, track institutional funding, or identify PIs.' This gives an agent strong context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would merit a 5.

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