search_in_project

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is already provided. The description adds that it returns articles/categories, which is a useful behavioral detail beyond annotations. It does not mention pagination or ranking behavior, but that is partially covered by the schema (hits_per_page) and the output schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence with no fluff. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and it is appropriately concise for a simple search tool.

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 tool has an output schema and annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. It provides sufficient context for a search operation, given that the schema documents the parameters. It could mention ranking or ordering, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, it is adequately complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, meaning all parameters (query, hits_per_page, project_version_id) already have descriptive text in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'project version', and the outcome 'return related articles/categories'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_article and get_category, which retrieve specific content. The purpose is unambiguous.

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: use this when you need to search across articles/categories rather than fetching a specific one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with sibling tools (get_article, get_category) is clear from context. The guidance is adequate but could be more explicit.

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