search_funders

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it searches 174K+ US and 32K+ European funders from IRS 990 data, implying a broad but possibly stale dataset. It does not mention pagination or exact return format, but overall provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 two short paragraphs. The first sentence is a clear verb+resource statement. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating what it does, providing data source, and giving usage guidance with sibling differentiation. No wasted words.

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 the complexity (12 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description covers the core purpose, data sources, and when to use. It could mention output format (list of funders with details) for completeness, but the absence is minor given the clarity otherwise.

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% with detailed descriptions for all 12 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 finds grantmaking organizations by name, cause area, or location. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool search_open_grants by specifying that search_funders is for funders that may not have a live RFP, while the sibling is for active opportunities.

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 explicitly provides when to use (to find aligned funders, or when user names a specific funder) and when not to use (for active/open opportunities, use search_open_grants instead). It also adds context that these funders may fund by relationship, LOI, or annual cycle.

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