nonprofit_search_nonprofits_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns up to 25 matches and includes EINs for precise lookup. It does not cover rate limits or error handling, but for a simple search tool this is sufficient.

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 three concise sentences with the main action in the first sentence. No filler or redundant information.

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 covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, return limit, and unique identifier (EIN). It is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains that the name parameter can be full or partial, and that the state parameter is optional. This provides useful context 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 for US nonprofits by organization name, optionally filtered by state, and returns up to 25 matches with EINs. This distinguishes it from siblings like nonprofit_fetch_nonprofit_by_ein (which uses EINs) and nonprofit_fetch_charity_uk (UK).

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 tells the user when to use the tool: to find US nonprofits by name. It provides clear context (US nonprofits, optional state filter) but does not explicitly mention alternative tools for when not to use it, such as when an EIN is already known.

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