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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns a paginated list, states the exact fields returned, and discloses a limitation that item-type search within a project is not yet supported via API and facets should be used for project-based counts.

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 efficiently structured: the first sentence states the action, the second states the return fields, and the remaining sentences add valuable examples and cross-tool navigation. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of annotation content.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return-value structure in detail. It covers pagination, result fields, how to use returned UUIDs with the detail tool, and the API limitation around item-type searches. This is sufficient for an agent to select the tool and invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents query examples, empty-string browsing, rows bounds, and pagination offset. The description reinforces pagination and empty-string browsing but adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing, 'Search for archaeological excavation projects and collections', and explicitly enumerates the returned fields (label, URI, publication date, last update date). It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools by linking the returned URI segment to opencontext.archaeology.detail and by positioning itself as the project-level search within the Open Context family.

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 gives downstream usage guidance: use the returned URI as a UUID for detail lookups and combine with opencontext.archaeology.search or facets for item-level work. However, it never explicitly states 'use this instead of opencontext.archaeology.search when you need projects' or provides a clear when-not-to-use condition, so sibling selection is more implied than explicit.

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