kaken_get_researcher_grants

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that all projects (both PI and co-PI) are returned and hints at available data (e.g., cumulative allocation). However, it omits details on pagination, error handling, output format, or whether the result includes full project details. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise with three clear sentences: definition, use cases, and comparison with name search. No redundant information. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters) but overall efficient.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify return values. It mentions 'all projects' and implies fields like cumulative allocation, but does not specify the full output structure or pagination. For a simple tool with 3 parameters, it is minimally complete but leaves the agent guessing about the response format.

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 low (33%, only researcherNumber described). The description repeats the researcher number format but adds no new meaning for the other parameters (rw, format). Use cases are mentioned but not tied to parameters. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieve all projects (grants) where a researcher is PI or co-PI using their 8-digit researcher number. It also mentions specific use cases (achievement tracking, time-series analysis, aggregation) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that name search may mix same-name individuals, reinforcing when this tool is appropriate.

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 provides explicit context for use: when you need all projects by a specific researcher and have their number. It warns against using name search due to ambiguity. However, it does not discuss when to use related sibling tools like kaken_get_project or kaken_search_projects, leaving some gaps in guidance.

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