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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: results come as 'bounded pages from a build snapshot,' telling the agent results are paginated and may be stale relative to live data — a real behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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 sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action and resource before the return-shape note. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it searches, on what facets, and that results are paginated from a snapshot. Minor gaps: no note on what a result record contains or behavior when no facet is supplied.

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?

At 57% schema coverage, the schema documents query (plain-text, no regex), sort and limit defaults, and two enums. The description maps four facets to parameters but adds nothing beyond naming them, and says nothing about page, sort, or limit behavior. Adequate but not compensating for the uncovered parameters.

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 gives a specific verb ('Find') plus resource ('public Jev / System One projects') and enumerates the matchable facets (keyword, category, tag, language). It doesn't explicitly name sibling get_project as the ID-lookup alternative, so the distinction is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: you'd use this when you want to discover projects by facet rather than fetch a known one. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of get_project as the alternative for ID-based retrieval, and no guidance on combining facets or zero-result behavior.

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