search_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool supports name-based queries with LIKE and OR operators, and that only the 'name' field is searchable. This provides behavioral constraints beyond just the tool name, although it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error handling.

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 well-structured with clear sections for operators, fields, and examples. It is slightly verbose given the schema already includes examples, but every sentence contributes to understanding the TQL syntax. The first sentence provides immediate clarity.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return values and pagination. It does not mention what the response looks like, that results are paginated, or how the cursor works beyond the schema's mention. While the schema covers cursor and limit, the description is incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

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%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by thoroughly explaining the TQL language, operators, and examples, which helps the agent construct valid searchString values. It also clarifies that queries are name-based only.

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 using TQL (Townsquare Query Language)' and goes on to specify the supported operators, searchable fields, and examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_goals by focusing on projects and from list_projects by introducing TQL as the search method.

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 you need to filter projects by name using TQL conditions, providing examples that illustrate the query syntax. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the examples and field specification give clear context for typical use cases.

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