search_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only search operation (via the verb 'search') and lists the return fields, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating, nor does it mention any rate limits, result caps, or ordering behavior. The content is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 that front-loads the action ('Search for projects'), specifies the resource, and lists the return fields. There is zero filler; every word carries meaning. It achieves maximum clarity in minimal space.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: it states the search capability, the input criteria, and the output fields. It does not mention pagination or result limits, which could be relevant, but for a straightforward search tool the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 describes the single parameter 'searchText' as 'Project name or number to search for' with 100% coverage. The description adds no new meaning beyond restating the same criteria ('by name or number'). Per the baseline for high schema coverage, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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's purpose: 'Search for projects by name or number.' It specifies the resource (projects) and the search criteria, and lists the return fields (IDs, names, numbers, customer info). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like get_project (direct fetch by ID) and search_tasks (different resource).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_project should be used when the project ID is already known, or any other routing instructions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and generic search semantics, which is insufficient given the many sibling tools.

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