search_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: substring matching scope, the 'does not support regex or exact matching' caveat, defaults, and the per_page max of 100. However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, and what happens with zero results, leaving the profile incomplete.

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 Args/Returns structure is well-organized and front-loaded with the purpose. Given 7 parameters and zero schema coverage, the length is justified — each parameter line adds real information an agent needs. The opening sentence captures the core purpose efficiently.

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?

Reasonably complete: all parameters documented, search scope defined, output format described as 'formatted string with project search results including pagination info'. Gaps are the lack of auth/access requirements and error handling, which matter for a GitLab API tool, but for a search-with-pagination tool the coverage is solid.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does. All 7 parameters are documented with meanings, including the order_by value list ('id', 'name', 'created_at', 'star_count', 'last_activity_at') and defaults for optional ones. This goes well beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search for GitLab projects by keyword') and specifies the matching mechanism (substring across name, path, namespace, description). It's clear and distinct from sibling tools, which are all merge request/issue focused, though it doesn't name a sibling alternative explicitly.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites. It documents the search's limitations (no regex/exact matching) but doesn't connect that to selection logic — an agent gets no help deciding between search_projects and other tools.

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