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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the matching scope but does not disclose result ordering, limits, matching semantics (fuzzy vs exact), or whether full project objects are returned. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It names the resource, the action, and the search criteria in one compact structure.

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 one-parameter, read-only search tool with comprehensive schema documentation, this description is sufficient for correct invocation. It does not describe the return shape or result limits, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this a minor 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?

The input schema already documents the query parameter with examples, and coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by mapping the query to specific project attributes (topic, name, platform, working directory), which helps the agent construct an effective search term.

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 resource: 'Returns Arkon Vault projects' and enumerates the matching dimensions (topic, name, platform, working directory). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get/list operations, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does.

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 makes the intended use clear: call this when you need to find projects by a searchable attribute. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as using vault_get_project for a single known project, but the context is sufficiently unambiguous.

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