get_funder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context about the ID format but does not disclose behavior for missing IDs, error conditions, or the nature of the response. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and key identifier format. Zero wasted words.

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 simple fetch-by-ID tool with safe-read annotations, the description is functional but leaves gaps: it does not mention the 'raw' parameter, potential error responses, or return shape. Given the low complexity, it is minimally viable but not fully 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?

The schema has 0% coverage, and the description only indirectly explains funder_id by stating it is a Crossref Funder Registry id. The 'raw' boolean parameter is completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'fetch' with a clear resource 'one funder' and a precise identifier ('Crossref Funder Registry id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_funders (search across funders) and get_funder_works (works by funder).

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 implies usage: use when you have a specific funder ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like search_funders for searching by name. Guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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