boond_projects_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search projects by criteria' reveals nothing about pagination behavior, result shape, authentication needs, search field semantics, or whether this is a safe read operation. The description is essentially a tautology of the tool name.

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 brief with no wasted words, but it borders on under-specification: 'by criteria' is vague filler that could easily have named the actual criteria (query, status, company). Concise, but the brevity buys the agent nothing.

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?

For a search tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too thin. It fails to explain what the query parameter searches against, how pagination works, what a result looks like, or how this tool differs from boond_projects_get. An agent could invoke it correctly from the schema alone, but would be guessing about semantics.

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% — all five parameters have descriptions in the schema. Per the baseline, the description need not repeat parameter details, and it doesn't, so a 3 is appropriate. The vague phrase 'by criteria' adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('projects'), making the basic operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from boond_projects_get or the many sibling search tools, relying instead on the pervasive search-vs-get naming convention, so it falls 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?

No guidance is given on when to search versus retrieve a single project, when to prefer query over status/companyId filters, or how this search compares to sibling search tools. An agent receives no direction on tool selection or effective use.

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