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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses several important behaviors: translation rules, return fields (semantic score, matched_chunks, evidence excerpts, updated_at), the fact that freshness does not affect ranking, and that results are untrusted data. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides dense, useful guidance. Some statements are slightly redundant (e.g., 'Send query in English' and 'Translate non-English discovery requests into English'), but overall each sentence earns its place with actionable instruction.

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 adequately explains what the tool returns and how to structure queries. It also covers trust and freshness caveats. Missing details are the semantics of limit and min_score and any error/pagination behavior, but the description remains sufficient for a straightforward semantic search tool.

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 query parameter is thoroughly described both in the schema and the tool description, including translation and intent-preservation rules. However, limit and min_score have no description beyond defaults and types, and the schema description coverage is only 33%. The description does not clearly explain how limit or min_score affect results, leaving an agent to infer their meaning.

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 action ('Search semantically across public project descriptions') and a clear resource ('project descriptions'), so an agent understands exactly what the tool does. It is also naturally distinguished from sibling tools like search_people and search_agents by the project focus.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: to find projects matching goals, skills, interests, collaboration needs, etc. It gives detailed language-handling instructions but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_project or search_agents, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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