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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety. The description adds genuine context beyond that: deterministic ranking (exact > prefix > contains, then sales count), daily data freshness, CC BY 4.0 licensing, and the null-url edge case for projects without a page.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and matching rules, then parameters, then return shape and provenance. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; slightly long but no filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating return fields (id, title, type, name, slug, url, and key figures) and the id-to-fetch handoff. Only the `limit` parameter's behavior remains unaddressed.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It fully covers `query` matching rules and the `type` enum values (project|community|developer|area), but says nothing about `limit`, leaving one of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (Dubai projects, communities, developers, areas) with the searchable field (name) and matching semantics. An agent can distinguish it from fetch/get_entity, which retrieve a single known entity rather than query by name.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the sibling `fetch` by noting the returned `id` should be passed to it, which clarifies the search-then-fetch workflow. It does not state when to prefer this over get_entity or list_rankings, so exclusions are absent.

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