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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the search is over public projects, requires no authentication, returns ranked matches, and each result includes a public_slug for use with clearly_ask_project. It does not describe error cases or full result fields, but for a read-only search tool this is substantial transparency.

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 sentences with no filler: the opening sentence states the resource and scope, and the second sentence covers the return value and its connection to the sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke correctly: what is searched, that no auth is required, that results are ranked, and how to chain into clearly_ask_project. It would be more complete with a note about result shape or limit behavior, but those are minor gaps for this tool's complexity.

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 the schema already documents query, limit, and category. The description adds context about categories and public projects, but does not materially extend parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('the Clearly directory of public projects'), and enumerates example categories. It clearly distinguishes the tool from clearly_ask_project by explaining that results include a public_slug intended for that sibling tool.

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 gives clear context: use this to search public projects, and then use clearly_ask_project to chat with a project's AI agent via the returned public_slug. It notes 'No auth required,' which helps an agent decide it can invoke this safely, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention clearly_capture_lead as an alternative.

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