Search Research Organizations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the pagination limit ('Returns up to 20 results per page') and the returned fields (name, acronym, types, status, country, city, founding year, website). It also explains the persistence and purpose of ROR IDs, which is helpful context.

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 first sentence front-loads the purpose, and subsequent sentences add domain context (ROR maintainers, ROR ID usage) and result characteristics. Some background details, such as the specific maintainers, are not strictly necessary but do not bloat the description. Overall it is well-structured and appropriately sized.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, an output schema present, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description plus structured metadata fully cover what an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly. It also includes practical examples of use cases and ROR ID semantics. Nothing essential for making a correct search call is missing.

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 mostly restates what the schema already says (search by name/acronym/keyword, use page parameter to paginate) without adding new parameter-level meaning. It does not materially improve on the schema descriptions for query, page, or all_status.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Search the Research Organization Registry (ROR) for research institutions, universities, hospitals, companies, government agencies, and funders by name, acronym, or keyword.' This clearly identifies what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like ror.organizations.get, ror.organizations.filter, or ror.organizations.affiliation, so it stops short of full marks.

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 use cases ('Ideal for disambiguating author affiliations, validating institution names, and building bibliometric analyses...'), which implies when to use the tool. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, and given several sibling ROR tools exist, explicit routing would be valuable. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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