search_funders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It adds return field info ('funder id, name, location'), which is useful, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, cursor/offset semantics, the effect of 'raw', or any other side effects or constraints beyond the annotation. This matches the baseline for annotation-backed descriptions but adds relatively little 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. No filler words. Every sentence conveys necessary information: what the tool does and what it returns.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 5 optional parameters and no output schema. The description only covers the basic search and a few return fields. It omits critical context about pagination (cursor/offset), the 'raw' flag behavior, and the full structure of the response (which may include more than the listed fields). Given the lack of schema descriptions and output schema, the description is insufficient for reliable invocation and response interpretation.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. The phrase 'by name' implies the 'query' parameter, but there is no explanation of 'rows', 'cursor', 'offset', or 'raw'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to infer parameter behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('funding bodies'), with a clear qualifier ('by name') and return fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by naming the entity type, and from 'get_funder' by being a search rather than a direct lookup.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that 'get_funder' should be used to retrieve a specific funder by ID, nor does it explain when to use search_funders over other search_* tools. The only implied usage is that it searches by name, but no context or exclusions are provided.

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