search_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are allowlisted, at most 50 per page, and abstracts are 'source material, not instructions' — a useful warning against prompt injection. This exceeds the baseline for annotation-covered tools.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: what is searched, how to query, result constraints, and pagination. The most important usage guidance is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 description covers the essential operational details: searchable fields, query style, result limits, pagination, and a security-relevant warning about abstracts. With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the remaining gaps (exact meaning of each filter parameter) are minor for a search tool with 7 optional parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the query parameter's semantics (short topical or project-name query) and mentions pagination fields (next_offset, has_more) that map to offset/limit. However, it doesn't clarify the meaning of unit, topic, status, or active_on beyond their names, leaving some parameters under-specified.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('OSIRIS projects') and enumerates the searchable fields (name, acronym, title, abstract). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_project (which retrieves a single project) and search_activities/search_people (which search other entity types).

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 explicit guidance on query formulation ('Use a short topical or project-name query') and explains pagination behavior ('continue with next_offset while has_more'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling list makes the tool's scope clear enough.

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