Nih Search Projects

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: AND/OR combination logic, exact phrase quoting, and that search_id enables paging without re-specifying criteria. It does not mention rate limits, result caps, or anything beyond the schema. With annotations carrying the safety burden, 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 opening is front-loaded and clear, but the large inline reference lists for activity codes and agencies are bulky and partially duplicate the schema descriptions (which already list common codes). It is informative but not tightly structured; the code lists could be seen as padding since the schema already covers many of them.

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 22-parameter read-only search tool with an output schema present, the description covers query semantics, value conventions, and paging via search_id. It is largely complete; the main gap is the absence of guidance on choosing between this tool and its siblings, but return values are covered by the output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by supplying the common activity code and agency abbreviation reference tables, which help the agent construct valid values for those parameters. That elevates it above baseline.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb and resource: search the NIH RePORTER database for federally funded research projects. It provides rich scope detail (grants, contracts, intramural, 27 institutes). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling nih_get_project or explain how it relates to it, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains query semantics (AND across criteria, OR within lists, text_operator behavior) which implicitly guides usage, but it never states when to use this search tool versus nih_get_project or nih_find_publications. No explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives are given.

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