search_projects

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool name. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description does not clarify what side effects might occur, how authentication works, or what the request body is expected to contain. It fails to leverage the body or openWorldHint annotations to explain behavior.

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 extremely short, but it is under-specified. Two words do not provide usable information; this is not conciseness but rather a lack of substance. No structure, front-loading of key details, or separation of concerns is present.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, a required body, no output schema, and a complex domain (bexio API). The description 'Search projects' does not explain how to construct the request, what results are returned, pagination, sorting, or any other essential context. It is wholly inadequate for a tool of this 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%, with each parameter having a basic description. However, the required 'body' parameter is only described as 'Request body as defined by the bexio API', which is vague and offers little semantic value. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, so the baseline of 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 'Search projects' is a direct tautology of the tool name 'search_projects'. It provides no additional specificity about what the search does, how it filters, or what it returns, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'list_projects' or 'get_project'.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many related search/list tools (e.g., search_invoices, search_quotes, list_projects), but the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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