badge_search

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

The description provides no behavioral traits beyond the basic action. With no annotations, the burden is on the description to disclose aspects like result format (list of projects?), pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. None are mentioned.

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 concise (one sentence) but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core action, but brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description should at least indicate what the search returns (e.g., a list of badge project summaries). It does not, leaving the agent without enough context to properly use the tool.

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 100% (the 'query' parameter has a description: 'Search query (project name or keyword)'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 as per coverage guidelines.

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 action ('Search') and the resource ('OpenSSF Best Practices badge projects'). It is specific enough to know what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like badge_by_repo or badge_project, which also relate to badge projects.

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. For example, it does not specify that this tool is for keyword-based searching, while badge_by_repo is for repository-based lookup and badge_project is for exact project name lookup.

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