Search Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral trait – results are ranked matches from the projects picker endpoint – but says nothing about pagination or how ranking is determined.

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 with the core capability front-loaded and the efficiency note following. The reference to the underlying 'projects picker endpoint' is mild implementation detail but does support the ranking claim.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations are rich, so return values and safety needn't be explained here. For a simple three-parameter search tool, the description plus structured fields give an agent everything needed to call it correctly.

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 query, max_results, and current_project_ids are already documented, including the 50 cap and the exclusion semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating that 'query' is a name or key prefix.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search for Jira projects') and narrows the matching to name or key prefix. It implicitly contrasts with bulk listing ('without fetching every visible project') but never names the sibling jira_get_all_projects explicitly.

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 second sentence implies the usage condition: prefer this over enumerating every visible project when you want matching results. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no named alternative, and no prerequisites (auth, permissions) are stated.

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