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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: the empty-query browse mode and the result ordering ('ordered by name and slug'), which an agent cannot get from annotations alone. It omits pagination behavior and any rate/auth notes.

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 the core action and followed by scope and ordering details. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description covers what is searched and how results are ordered, which is a reasonable minimum. It is incomplete on pagination semantics (limit/offset) and the unexplained category filter, which are the main gaps an agent would hit when invoking it.

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 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the 'query' parameter (searchable fields, empty-string semantics); 'category', 'limit', and 'offset' are left entirely undocumented in both places — notably the category filter is a distinct capability an agent would not infer.

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 — 'Search published perps.ai projects' — and scopes the searchable fields (name, description, tag). This is clearly distinguishable from get_project and list_project_categories, though the description never names an alternative tool.

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 genuine usage hint that tells the agent how to enumerate everything. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_project or list_project_categories, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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