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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. The description adds 'Keyless' (no authentication required), which is useful operational context beyond annotations. It also states the data fields returned, which is valuable since no output schema exists. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and key filters. The second sentence lists return fields and keyless access. Every clause adds value with no 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?

For a search tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good summary of behavior and return fields. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or limit defaults, but schema covers limit. Given the moderate complexity and strong annotations, this is adequately complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (limit, query, status, country_code). The description adds marginal guidance ('Provide query and/or country_code') but mostly reinforces schema content. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Search') with resource ('World Bank development projects') and modifiers (free text, country, status). It also enumerates return fields (financing, sectors, lending instrument, dates, status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_project (single project) and projects_by_country (country-based listing).

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?

Implied usage is clear: use for searching projects by text/country/status. However, there is no explicit comparison to sibling tools (e.g., 'instead of get_project use this for broad searches') or exclusions. The phrase 'Provide query and/or country_code' gives minimal usage direction but lacks explicit context for when to prefer this over alternatives.

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