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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that (publication scope, empty-query browse semantics, ordering by name and slug), but omits pagination behavior despite limit/offset params.

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 purpose and searchable fields; the browse and ordering details follow efficiently with zero 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?

Covers purpose, browse fallback, and result ordering, but for a 4-param search tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, it leaves category semantics and pagination (limit/offset) undocumented; adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate but mostly does not. It implies query semantics (name/description/tag) and the empty-query default, but omits any mention of limit, offset, or the category parameter, and gives no bounds or format guidance.

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+resource (search published Tempo Atlas projects) and names the searchable fields (name, description, tag), clearly distinguishing it from get_project (single fetch) and list_project_categories.

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 'empty query browses the directory' note implies a browse use-case versus a targeted search, which is some usage guidance. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus the sibling get_project/list_project_categories, so it stays implied rather than stated.

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