search_side_projects

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the search fields and result field (resume_id). However, it does not disclose read-only behavior, pagination, or case-insensitivity (though query case-insensitivity is in schema). Acceptable but minimal beyond schema.

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 sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second adds key output detail. Perfectly sized and front-loaded.

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 output schema (handles return values) and full parameter descriptions, the description is nearly complete. It could mention result ordering or limits but is sufficient for an agent to understand functionality and invocation.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining that the query searches across name, description, and associated technology, which is not in schema. It also clarifies resume_id as an optional scope filter, adding context beyond the schema's bare description.

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 resource 'side projects', specifying the fields searched (name, description, technology) and that results include resume_id. It distinguishes the general search from list_side_projects but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search_side_projects_by_technology, which is more specific.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like search_side_projects_by_technology or list_side_projects. The description implies general text search but fails to indicate appropriate contexts or exclusions.

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