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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: an empty query is a valid browse invocation, and results come back ordered by name and slug (deterministic ordering), which affects how an agent pages through output.

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, front-loaded with what is searched and immediately followed by the empty-query and ordering behaviors. No filler, though the ordering sentence sits slightly below the more actionable empty-query statement.

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 and no parameter descriptions, the definition needs to do more for a four-parameter, paginated search tool. It covers the core search semantics and browse mode but omits the category filter and all pagination details, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: limit, offset and category are never mentioned, and pagination behavior (defaults, max 50 / 10000 caps) is undocumented. It only hints that 'query' matches name/description/tag, adding a little meaning to one of four parameters.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Search published Canton Wiki projects') plus the searchable fields (name, description, tag) and scope ('published'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_project or list_project_categories, so an agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.

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?

'An empty query browses the directory' is a useful usage cue for the browse mode, but there is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus get_project (single fetch) or list_project_categories. Usage context is implied rather than stated, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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