search_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only lists parameters and repeats their names/types, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the search is case-insensitive, supports partial matching, or how pagination works. It also lacks information about rate limits, authentication, or that the operation is read-only.

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 short and includes a clear purpose statement at the beginning. However, the parameter list is redundant with the input schema and could be omitted or summarized. It is generally efficient with no wasted words.

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?

Given the presence of 5 parameters (including pagination and sorting) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of project objects, pagination metadata), how results are ordered by default, or error handling for invalid queries. The agent is left with significant unknown context 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?

The description adds minor meaning beyond the schema: 'page' is 1-indexed, 'sort_by' can be 'project_id' or 'name', and 'sort_order' can be 'asc' or 'desc'. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more; it does not clarify what 'query' searches (e.g., both project_id and name) or provide examples. The parameter list largely duplicates the schema.

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 'Search projects by project_id or name,' specifying the resource (projects) and the capability (search). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_projects' (which lists all projects without search) and 'get_project' (which retrieves a single project by ID).

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 implies usage for searching projects by project_id or name, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_projects' for unfiltered listing or the general 'search' tool. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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