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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: a 20-result cap, ownership scoping, and an explicit authorization requirement (existing projects permission). It does not describe result ordering or what happens when no names match, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the scope and limit front-loaded and the exclusion trailing as a qualifier. Nothing is filler, but the density of noun-phrase jargon ('explicit composer selection') hurts immediate comprehension slightly.

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 search with an output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to call it: requisites, scope, result cap, and boundaries. The remaining gap is the matching semantics of the query string and the relationship to list_developments, which are minor given the low complexity.

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?

The single query parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It implies the string is matched against development names and capped at 20 results, but never says whether matching is prefix, substring, or fuzzy, nor how the 100-character limit interacts with behavior. Partial compensation only.

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 (owned development names) with a hard scope limit of 20 results. The closing clause excludes history and document search, which implicitly separates it from siblings like search_aec_knowledge, though it never names list_developments or another alternative. The phrase 'explicit composer selection' is internal jargon that adds little for an outside agent.

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?

Gives a clear when-not ('not complete history or document search') and a precondition (requires the existing projects permission), which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead for full history or document lookups, so the agent must infer the alternative.

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