search_projects

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: by default, only verified projects with available units are shown. Since no annotations are provided, this adds useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not fully cover other behavioral aspects like read-only safety or response format, leaving room for improvement.

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 short sentences. The first states the primary purpose, and the second adds a valuable default behavior. It is front-loaded, concise, and free of filler.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, but the description is brief. It conveys purpose and a key default, while the schema covers parameter details. Still, it lacks information about return format or how filters combine, making it only minimally complete for 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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the default filter behavior, which indirectly relates to 'verified' and 'include_sold_out'. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 the verb 'Search' and the resource 'development projects', with concrete examples ('towers, gated communities'). This differentiates it from siblings like search_listings and get_project, which target individual listings or specific projects.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria. With siblings like search_listings and get_project present, guidance on when to choose search_projects would be helpful, but it is absent.

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