search_rnd_projects

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

Given no annotations, the description partially fulfills behavioral transparency by listing return fields and stating no API key required. However, it lacks disclosure of rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects.

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 front-loaded purpose and a list of returned fields. However, it could be more structured by separating input and output details.

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 covers return fields acceptably. But absence of input parameter descriptions and usage guidelines makes it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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%. The description does not clarify the input parameters (query, page, page_size) beyond their names and defaults. It does not explain query syntax, valid values, or how pagination works.

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 searches South Korea's national R&D projects via NTIS, specifies the data source and fields returned, and distinguishes from sibling tools (announcements, programs) by focusing on projects.

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 implies usage for searching R&D projects but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or context for optimal use.

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