search_projects

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses return fields and TQL filtering, but does not explicitly confirm read-only nature, authentication requirements, or rate limits. 'Search' implies safety, but a direct statement would be stronger.

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 concise: two sentences, three clauses, no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then adds return info and a usage hint, making every word valuable.

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 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return fields. It does not detail pagination mechanics (e.g., how 'after' works) or the behavior of an empty searchString, but the schema fills those gaps, so it is reasonably 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, including examples and defaults. The description's mention of searchString adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'Atlassian Projects', with the parenthetical '(Townsquare)' specifying the scope. It also lists the return fields (key, name, state, pagination info), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools that focus on goals or project updates.

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 implied: this tool is for searching/filtering projects. The description does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for different use cases. Sibling names like get_goal suggest distinctions, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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