nonprofit_search_nonprofits_by_name

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

No annotations provided, so description fully carries the burden. It explicitly states read-only, no side effects, idempotent, US only, returns up to 25 matches, 7-day cache, and verified source. Also mentions that if results don't serve user, report feedback.

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 informative and well-structured with key info at the start. Slightly verbose due to repetition of 'Use this when...' and the report_feedback instruction, but each sentence adds value. Could be tightened slightly.

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 an output schema exists, the description adequately describes the return fields (EIN, name, state, revenue, NTEE code). Also covers caching, source, and error handling, making it complete for a search 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 coverage is 0%, but description compensates well: explains name is required and can be full or partial, state is optional with example codes (CA, NY) and defaults to all states. This adds crucial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 searches US nonprofits by name with an optional state filter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nonprofit_fetch_nonprofit_by_ein by specifying when to use each.

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?

Explicit guidelines: use when you have a name but not the EIN, and use the EIN lookup instead when the EIN is known. Also notes US only, idempotent, and provides fallback via report_feedback.

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