search_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully describe behavior. It states matching fields, but misses key aspects like case sensitivity, partial matching, result limits, pagination, or whether the search is read-only. This is adequate but not thorough.

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?

One sentence, 14 words, no filler. Every word provides essential information. The description is front-loaded with the action ('Search projects by keyword') and immediately gives specifics.

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 tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose and matching scope. Minor gap: it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list of project summaries), but this is implied by the tool name.

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 coverage is 100% (keyword documented). The description adds value by specifying which fields the keyword matches against (name, description, tech stack, highlights), which is not in the schema's parameter description. This goes beyond the baseline of 3.

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 tool searches projects by keyword and lists the specific fields matched (name, description, tech stack, highlights). This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like get_projects (list all) and get_project_detail (single project).

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 when a keyword is available but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. For example, it doesn't say to use get_projects for an unfiltered list or get_project_detail for a specific project.

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