list_funders

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not address important traits like read-only nature, pagination behavior (rows default is 20, but no max), authentication needs, or rate limits. The brief description fails to adequately warn or inform the agent about side effects or constraints.

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?

Description is very concise (two lines plus examples) with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly expanded to cover missing parameter details without losing conciseness. Front-loads the core purpose effectively.

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 an output schema, description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context on pagination limits, default behavior, and scope (e.g., registry coverage). The examples provide partial context but are not sufficient for a complete understanding. A moderately adequate description for a straightforward listing tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides examples for 'query' and 'rows', but does not explain 'filter' or 'offset' parameters. The meaning of 'filter' (e.g., location:United States) is shown in an example but not formally described. Overall, the description adds limited semantic value beyond the schema structure.

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?

Description clearly states 'List or search funding bodies in the Crossref Funder Registry', providing a specific verb ('list or search') and resource ('funding bodies'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_funder' (single funder) and 'get_journal' (different resource).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Examples show usage patterns but lack criteria for choosing this over sibling tools like 'search_works' or 'list_members'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are stated.

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