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

The annotations already declare it as a safe, read-only, closed-world operation, but the description adds context the annotations do not cover: login is required, and the output shape differs by result (found=true with id/title/updatedAt, or found=false). It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but that is a minor gap.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then structured by 用途, 入力, and 出力. Every sentence adds useful context, and there is no redundant 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies what the schema and annotations do not: the authentication requirement, the pre-import usage context, the guide reference, and the return-value shape for both found and not-found cases. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents origin_url, including git URL formats and the fallback to an absolute local path. The description only restates the input name and mentions the local-path variant, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: locate an IceShore project (ADL) from a git origin URL or local absolute path. It also distinguishes the tool from its siblings (create_content, save_content, list_projects) by positioning it as a pre-import existence check.

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?

It gives an explicit usage scenario: before an IaC import, check whether the same repository has already been imported. It also names the alternatives: if found, update via save_content; if not, create via create_content. The guide reference adds clear next-step routing.

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