list_funders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the output. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how limit/max_scan affect the scan, or any potential performance implications.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting essential context, so it earns high marks for conciseness but not a perfect score.

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 two parameters, no annotations, and only a one-line description, the tool is under-specified. The output schema exists, but the description still fails to clarify semantics like what counts as a frequency or how scanning limits apply, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 tool description does not mention limit or max_scan at all. The parameter names are suggestive, but their effect on the returned frequencies is unexplained, leaving the agent without enough information to set them correctly.

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 that the tool provides funder name/ID frequencies derived from fundingReferences in metadata, specifying a concrete resource and result type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like facets or funder_compliance.

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 versus alternatives. The description only states what it computes, with no mention of suitable contexts, exclusions, or relationships to other tools.

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