nsf_awards_search

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

The read-only annotation already covers safety, and the description adds value by disclosing the return fields (award titles, PI names, institutions, funding amounts, dates), which is beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. It efficiently states purpose and typical return 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately lists the result fields. Combined with full parameter descriptions and the read-only annotation, the tool is adequately specified. A note on pagination (e.g., limit/offset) is absent but covered in the schema, so no major gap.

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 all parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond grouping the search dimensions, which is already clear from parameter names and descriptions.

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 'Search NSF research awards by keyword, principal investigator, institution, or program' with a specific verb and resource. It also lists the output fields, distinguishing it from detail lookups like nsf_award_detail.

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 context for when to use this tool (when searching by keyword, PI, institution, program). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the intended use case is evident.

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