nsf_award_detail

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

The annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already disclosed. The description adds context about the returned fields, which is useful, but it does not mention any specific behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the award ID is not found. This is acceptable given the annotation, but not exceptionally rich.

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 sentences: the first states the function, the second lists the return fields. It is front-loaded and contains zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple one-parameter detail tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It explains the purpose, the input, and explicitly lists what will be returned, which is essential since there is no output schema. No other context is necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%: the awardId parameter is fully described in the input schema with an example. The description only says 'by award ID' and adds no new information about parameter formatting or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'full details of an NSF research award', and the identifier 'by award ID'. It lists specific return fields (title, PI info, institution, funding, abstract, program, co-PIs), which distinguishes it from the sibling search tool 'nsf_awards_search'.

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 implies usage by stating 'by award ID', making it clear this tool is for fetching details when an award ID is known. It does not explicitly exclude search scenarios or mention the alternative nsf_awards_search, but the context is clear and no misleading alternatives are given.

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