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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that results are ranked and include citation URLs and visual highlights, but much of this is return-value detail already implied by the output schema rather than new behavioral 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?

A single dense sentence with no wasted words, and the verb and scope are front-loaded. It is tight, though its brevity is partly why parameter and usage detail are missing.

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 an 8-parameter tool with an enum filter and multiple boolean toggles at 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits any explanation of the filter semantics, pagination/limit behavior, or exclusion logic an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely fails. It only obliquely gestures at includeVisuals ('visual highlights') and includeCaseSignals ('case-study signals'); query, limit, aiFilter (7-valued enum), category, excludeSlugs, and maxVisualsPerResult are all left unexplained.

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 and resource ('Searches project narrative fields') and describes the ranked excerpt result shape. It distinguishes itself as a search tool, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like search_first_party_context or search_allowed_external_domains.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling tools (search_first_party_context, get_project_by_slug, fetch_curated_page_context). The phrase 'optional case-study signals' hints at a toggle but never states a use case or exclusion.

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