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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context: it returns the project identity with the result and notes that cut points should snap to midpoints/word boundaries. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the most critical scope constraint (PROJECT-SCOPED), and every phrase earns its place. It's efficient and immediately actionable.

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 read-only find operation with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: scope, parameter semantics, and the expected result behavior (snapping cut points). It doesn't detail the output format, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, this is acceptable.

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%: only project_id has a description. The description explicitly explains min_seconds ('Silences of at least min_seconds'), adding meaning beyond the bare type in the schema. It partially compensates for the missing schema description, though it could be more detailed (e.g., units).

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 clearly states a specific verb ('find') and resource ('silences' within a project), and explicitly differentiates the scope (project-scoped) and result (returns project identity and silences). This distinguishes it from siblings like cut_silences, which perform a mutating action.

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 description highlights that it operates only on an explicit project_id, implying it should be used when a project is known and silences need to be identified. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the existence of cut_silences suggests a natural separation, so the usage context is implied rather than fully stated.

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