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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond these by specifying the search scope ('searches only the live ecosystem directory') and the matching mechanism ('matching across title + category + description + tags'). It doesn't over-explain but provides useful constraints. A slight gap exists regarding result ranking, but overall it adds meaningful transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action ('Find...'). Every sentence earns its place: the first defines what it does, the second notes the scope ('Canton-specific'), and the third gives usage guidance and an alternative. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 well-documented parameters, read-only annotations, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the search target, fields matched, live-directory limitation, and provides situational guidance (checking overlap before proposing a project). The absence of return-format details is acceptable since there is no output schema to elaborate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a modest layer by explaining that the 'description' parameter is a free-text query matched against multiple fields, but this largely recapitulates what the schema already implies. Limit and offset are fully documented in the schema, so the description doesn't add substantial parameter semantics beyond the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Find Canton ecosystem projects most similar to a free-text description' and specifies the matching fields (title, category, description, tags). It further distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it 'searches only the live ecosystem directory' and is 'Canton-specific', differentiating it from detect_builder_overlap and other search tools.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Useful before proposing a project to check overlap.' It also names an alternative for different needs: 'to also check pending/past Dev Fund proposals for the same idea, use detect_builder_overlap instead.' This clearly guides the agent on when to use this tool versus a sibling.

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