Find a Robinhood Chain project

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds useful beyond-annotation context: row caps for certain surfaces, which arguments those surfaces accept, the Under the Radar eligibility rule, and the explicit note that results are not ranked by price and that rows without a market figure follow in activity order. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the rest is a dense, run-on paragraph that packs twelve surface definitions and eligibility rules into an undifferentiated block. Phrases like "HEY tracked" and "its ships in 30 days, the last one with its source" are confusing, and the scanability is poor despite the detail being largely relevant.

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?

This is an 18-parameter discovery tool with an output schema and annotations, and the description covers its main search/browse modes, surface eligibility and ranking caveats. Combined with high schema coverage, that is enough for correct invocation, though missing default surface behavior and some parameter interactions keep it from being fully complete.

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 high at 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by defining all surface enum values in prose and by noting that shipping-in-silence and accelerating take no other argument while builder-radar takes query, radar, limit and offset. It does not explain every remaining parameter, but it adds substantial semantics for the most complex parameter.

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 opens with a specific lookup question covering name, $TICKER and 0x contract, then says it supports browsing build-activity surfaces. That is a clear verb-like purpose for a search/list tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_project_snapshot, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains the available surfaces and gives some argument restrictions for shipping-in-silence, accelerating and builder-radar, which implies when each surface is useful. However, it never names alternatives like get_project_snapshot or get_contract, nor does it state when not to use find_projects. Usage is therefore present but inferential rather than explicit.

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