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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden, and it delivers well. It discloses that results are bounded summaries only, that the token owner's own non-public projects are included for duplicate checks, that others' unpublished projects are excluded, and that return behavior changes without a token. This is rich behavioral context with no annotation to rely on.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no filler. Every sentence adds distinct value: what it returns, how scoping works, and access behavior. Zero 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?

For a search tool with 7 filter parameters, an output schema present, and no required parameters, the description covers purpose, scoping semantics, access behavior, and the alternative for detail. The presence of the output schema reduces the need to explain return values. The main minor gap is per-parameter semantics, but field names are largely self-explanatory.

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 compensate for the 7 undocumented parameters. The description does not enumerate the parameters explicitly, but it conveys the search's overall semantics (public plus owner's non-public scope, bounds on output). However, it doesn't add per-parameter meaning for limit, cursor, status, min_roi, asset_type, or max_funding_goal beyond what field names imply.

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 what the tool does: search Epinu real-asset projects. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming the alternative tool projects_get_deep_dive for detailed packets and clarifying the bounded-summary nature. This is a specific verb+resource+scope statement that differentiates from sibling marketplace_listings_search and search.

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 strong usage guidance: when the same owner searches, archived/draft/unpublished projects are included for duplicate checks, while another owner's unpublished projects are never returned. It also clarifies access behavior (available without a token for public results only), and points to projects_get_deep_dive as the alternative for detailed data. This is explicit when/when-not context.

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