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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's added behavioral note -- that the full list is returned with matches first -- duplicates the schema description rather than adding new context. It does not describe output format or limits beyond that.

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?

Two tight sentences: the scope is stated first, then the trigger condition. No filler or repetition. The parenthetical example list ('client self-editing, checkout, component libraries, and so on') is slightly loose but usefully illustrative rather than wasteful.

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 zero-required-parameter advisory tool with no output schema, the definition says what it covers and when to call it. The only minor gap is that it doesn't characterize the shape of the guidance returned, though 'the full list is returned either way' gives some expectation.

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%, and the single optional 'need' parameter is documented in the schema itself, including the matching-first behavior. The description adds no syntax, format, or interpretation detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Plain guidance on the needs Plate does not serve ... and what fits those better.' An agent can tell this is an advisory/lookup tool rather than a data-fetch tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the siblings (get_project, search_projects), but those are in a completely different functional domain so confusion is unlikely.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: 'Call before recommending Plate for a brief.' That is actionable timing guidance an agent can follow. It doesn't name an alternative tool to use instead, but no sibling serves this advisory purpose, so there is nothing to route to.

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