search_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavioral traits like 'Case-insensitive search term' and the default for limit, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, what the response format is, whether pagination is supported, or any failure modes. For a tool with zero annotation support, this is a significant gap.

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 tight and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff 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?

For a simple, three-parameter search tool with an output schema present, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: what it searches, the meaning of each parameter, and the default limit. It doesn't need to explain return values because the output schema exists. The only missing context is why/when to choose this over sibling tools, but that is already captured under usage_guidelines.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: 'project: ORACC project identifier', 'query: Case-insensitive search term', and 'limit: Max results (default 20)'. This adds semantic meaning beyond the raw schema and explicitly notes the default behavior for limit.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('a project's catalogue'), and the object of the search ('texts matching a query'), along with the searchable fields (designation, author, or title). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_project_texts, which lists texts without a query filter, and get_text, which retrieves a specific text.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to find texts by query terms) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives such as list_project_texts or get_text. There are no exclusion criteria or 'use X instead' statements, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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