swissco_research

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), but the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: the two distinct return shapes for text vs UID queries, the differing field sets (role/uid replacing participants), ARAMIS indexing limitations, and the critical false-negative caveat. No auth/rate-limit detail, but the search-scope disclosure is genuinely valuable.

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 content is front-loaded and organized into query-mode and limitation paragraphs, but the opening sentence is a fragment ('...money included.') and the full list of return fields is partly redundant given an output schema exists. Information density is good but there is trimming left on the table.

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 tool with non-obvious bifurcated behavior, the description covers query semantics, the distinct result shapes, and the interpretation trap of empty results. With an output schema present, return-value enumeration is arguably redundant, and the description does not clarify the 'language' parameter's effect on search, leaving a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by elaborating what the 'query' parameter actually does on each path (text vs UID resolution) beyond the schema's terse 'A UID ... or text to search projects for'. It does not add anything for limit or language, which the schema already documents.

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 establishes a specific resource (federally funded research projects from ARAMIS/Innosuisse/SNSF) and implies the retrieval action through its description of query behavior. However, it never explicitly frames itself as a search tool nor names a sibling (e.g. swissco_search) to distinguish scope, so an agent must infer the distinction from the data source.

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?

It gives concrete usage context: a text query searches names, abstracts and contractor fields, while a UID triggers a two-step ARAMIS name lookup then participant-UID confirmation. It also adds a strong 'when-not' caveat (an empty result is not evidence of no funding). It stops short of explicitly routing to sibling tools for other resource types.

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