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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description's job is only to add context. It contributes the "exact name" matching semantics and the zero-based pagination note, but says nothing about behavior with no filters supplied (does it return all projects?), result ordering, or total 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The brevity comes at the cost of completeness rather than being padded, but nothing in the text is wasted.

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 4-parameter, no-required-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is close to sufficient. It is missing the default-behavior case (no filters) and any differentiation from hubplanner_list_projects, which matters given how many overlapping sibling tools exist.

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 coverage is 50%: page and limit are already documented in the schema, and the status enum is self-describing. The description's real contribution is clarifying that name is an exact match rather than a substring search, which the schema does not say — valuable but limited to one parameter.

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 projects") and the two filter dimensions (exact name or status), so the agent knows what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling hubplanner_list_projects or hubplanner_get_project, leaving the search-vs-list boundary implicit.

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 phrase "by exact name or status" implies when to reach for this over a plain list, but the description never names an alternative or states a condition such as "use list_projects to enumerate everything." Usage must be inferred from sibling names.

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