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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond that: results are permission-scoped to accessible projects, omitting the query defaults to active projects, and the output is ids intended for other tools. It does not describe pagination behavior or the full result shape, but the added behavioral context is solid.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key default behavior and return-value note. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 read-only search tool with four well-documented optional parameters, full schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description provides everything needed: search scope, default listing behavior, and output usage. No output schema exists, but the description's note about returning ids is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds meaning by clarifying what happens when 'query' is omitted (active projects are listed), which complements the schema's 'status' and 'include_archived' defaults and helps the agent interpret optional parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource (“Finds projects”) and clarifies the searchable fields (name, number, customer) plus the access scope (“the user can access”). It also distinguishes this from detail-fetch siblings by explaining that it returns ids for use with other tools.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use with a query to search by name/number/customer, or omit the query to list active projects. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_project for a known id or search_customers/search_tickets, so it falls short of the top score.

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