search_project_updates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds that results are 'ranked only from factual engagement and labels,' which is useful context, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it's read-only), auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens with no matches—leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action. It avoids unnecessary words, but its brevity borders on under-specification—still, it earns points for structural economy.

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's complexity (5 optional params, output schema, and several siblings), the description is insufficient. It lacks usage guidelines, does not explain the concept of 'important updates' or 'factual engagement,' and does not complement the schema meaningfully, leaving agents uncertain about appropriate use and expected results.

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 80% (4 of 5 params have descriptions; limit lacks one but has min/max/default). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it does not improve semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool 'search important collected updates' with a verb and resource, but 'important' is vague and doesn't specify what constitutes 'updates' (though schema clarifies kinds). It doesn't differentiate from siblings like get_project_news or get_signal_timeline, which also deal with project updates.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions ranking by 'factual engagement and labels,' which hints at a differentiator but does not explicitly state use cases, exclusions, or alternative tools.

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