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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the AND-combination rule for filters and the meaning of `item_count` (only a subset carry digitised items). It doesn't cover pagination or response format, but those gaps are minor given annotation coverage.

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-loaded with scope, then the filter-combination rule, then the routing hint. Every sentence carries information and none restates the name or title.

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-param tool with no required fields and no output schema, the description covers tool purpose, filter behavior, and output-field semantics well. Return shape is only partially covered (item_count highlighted, but not the full record), leaving a small 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 88%, so per-parameter meaning is largely handled by the schema. The description still adds cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express: filters are AND-combined and omission means no filtering, which affects how the 8 optional params should be combined.

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 (search) and resource (research projects), then scopes it precisely to partner/source metadata labels plus external collections. It distinguishes itself from the sibling search_* tools by naming get_project as the detail alternative.

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?

Explicitly states that filters are optional and AND-combined and that omitting all of them lists every project, which tells the agent exactly how to use the tool for both filtered and browse use cases. It names get_project as the alternative for full detail, though it doesn't contrast against the generic `search` sibling.

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