search_configuration_parameters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaningful default that results are scoped to the current project unless overridden, and that filtering by name is substring-based. It says nothing about pagination, result size, or ordering, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns.

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?

Two tight sentences with the resource and payload front-loaded before the scoping and filter details. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 description usefully notes that values and projects are returned, which matters since there is no output schema, and it explains the default scoping. For a three-parameter search with two undocumented project parameters, it should say more about how project selection works and whether results are limited.

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 only 33%: only 'name' is documented, and the description at best restates its substring behavior. 'projectId' and 'projectName' are bare in the schema, and the description only implies they override the current-project default without stating which takes precedence or whether both may be supplied.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List configuration parameters') and clarifies the resource with concrete examples ('browser, os'), which separates it from 'search_configurations' conceptually. It stops short of naming a sibling to route against, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

It states the default scope ('Defaults to the current project') and how the name filter behaves, which is useful context for choosing it. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for cross-project or configuration-level lookups.

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