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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds important matching semantics: every word must appear, in any order. It also discloses authorization scoping ('only rows this connection may read') and that results include follow-up ids, though it does not describe result ordering or section grouping.

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 two compact sentences with no wasted wording. Matching semantics, authorization scope, and the useful return value are all front-loaded.

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 simple three-parameter search tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the core matching behavior, access scope, and return id. It omits result ordering and the per-section grouping implied by the schema's limit parameter, but those are minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents q, limit, and project_id. The description still adds meaningful semantics for q by specifying that all words must match in any order, which is not stated in the schema.

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 the three searchable resource types: project, task, and project memory file. It also explains that matching is word-based, which implicitly distinguishes it from sibling list/get tools, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implied by 'Find ... by words' and by saying each row contains the id a follow-up call needs, which suggests discovery before retrieval. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of list_projects, list_tasks, or the get_* tools.

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