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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely non-schema context: the result cap of 50, trial-project rate/quota capping, and a prompt-injection warning about catalogue text. Return format lacks field detail, but that is minor given the strong extra 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?

Three tight sentences front-loading the core action, followed by the safety warning and the quota caveat. No filler, though the prompt-injection sentence is a bit boilerplate.

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 3-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, return shape, cap, and quota caveats. Missing only explicit sibling routing and pagination/empty-result behavior for a search tool, which is a modest gap.

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%, with each parameter documented (q, limit default 10, project_id sourced from search_list_projects), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, except reiterating the 50-result cap.

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 ('Runs a search against one of your Search projects') and names the return payload (up to 50 items with titles, URLs, scores). This distinguishes it from search_list_projects and search_create_project, which manage projects rather than query them.

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?

The description implies usage (query an existing project) and the schema points to search_list_projects for obtaining a project_id, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not. Nothing tells the agent to prefer search_public_catalogue for public content or search_usage for quota checks.

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