sbir_awards_search

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

With readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the read-only nature is already disclosed. The description adds context about agency coverage and an example, but does not describe pagination defaults, result format, or rate limits. It doesn't contradict annotations, providing moderate additional behavioral context.

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 appropriately concise: it front-loads the purpose, lists common agencies in a helpful list, and includes an example—all in a few sentences. No redundant wording, every sentence contributes.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does, what agencies are covered, and how to structure a query. It lacks details about result fields or pagination, but the 6-parameter schema and simple scope make it sufficiently complete.

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 descriptions cover all 6 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing common agency abbreviations and showing a usage example, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's per-parameter 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 the tool's specific verb and resource ('Search SBIR/STTR small business innovation research awards') and elaborates on search dimensions (keyword, agency, company, year) and coverage across all participating federal agencies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (searching SBIR/STTR awards by various criteria) and gives a concrete example of combining keyword, agency, and limit. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the scope is self-evident from the description.

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