search_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Find' and 'Returns' imply a read-only, non-destructive operation and the return fields are enumerated, but pagination defaults/limits, sort behavior, and any auth or rate-limit constraints are left entirely to the schema or unstated.

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, zero waste, with the core capability stated first and the return shape second. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (id, name, status, progress, dates, managers). Combined with full schema coverage on inputs, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination behavior is left implicit.

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 100%, so each of the 8 parameters (skip, limit, sort, query, dateFrom, dateTo, status, type) is already documented. The description's 'Filterable fields' list loosely maps to these but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('projects') plus the filter dimensions and the returned fields. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_project or search_tasks by name and description, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with.

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?

Usage is only implied by the filter list; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance nor any mention of alternatives such as get_project (single fetch) or query_datamart (aggregation). An agent must infer that this tool is for filtered discovery rather than single-record retrieval.

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