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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing quota consumption against the plan's project limit, the fact that the created project is empty, and a two-phase confirmation flow where nothing happens until the person confirms and a summary plus tc_confirm code is returned. The destructiveHint is put into context rather than contradicted, since creation consumes a plan slot and is gated on human confirmation.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then scope, then next step, then the confirmation caveat — a sensible order with no filler. The confirmation idea is stated twice ("The person confirms before it runs" / "Nothing happens until the person confirms"), which is slightly redundant but reinforces a critical constraint.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers return values (project id, or a summary plus tc_confirm code), side effects (plan quota, empty project), and the follow-up tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself giving an example ("the website it will search"). The description adds nothing beyond "with the name given", so baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the work.

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 ("Creates a new, empty Search project") and scopes it ("in your organization with the name given"). It distinguishes itself from the import path by explicitly saying it does not import or index and pointing to search_start_import, so an agent can separate it from siblings like search_list_projects and search_project.

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 next step ("use search_start_import next") and a constraint ("Counts against your plan's project limit"). It does not discuss when not to create a project (e.g. one already exists), but the routing guidance is explicit enough to select the tool confidently.

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