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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's added value is the disclosure of what comes back (balances, financial need, life-to-date giving). It adds no pagination, rate-limit, or ordering context beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the annotation covers safety.

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; the purpose and the returned fields are front-loaded before the trailing endpoint note. The 'Virtuous: POST /api/Project/Search' fragment is mildly extraneous but negligible in size.

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, the description usefully enumerates the key return fields, and all three parameters are schema-documented with the read-only safety profile covered by annotations. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only the search-vs-get routing remains unaddressed.

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%, so skip/take/search are fully documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description's 'by name or code' merely restates the schema's own 'match against project name or code' clause and adds no syntax 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Find projects') and even disambiguates the domain term by glossing a project as 'funds / designations gifts are given to', plus states the payload fields returned. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling virtuous_get_project, which an agent would also need to choose between.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Find ... by name or code' signals a text-lookup intent, but the description never states when to search versus calling virtuous_get_project, nor any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so the agent must infer the split.

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