worldbank_search_by_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond restating that results are project-scoped: no pagination behavior, no result-set characteristics, no indication that an identifier or name is mandatory.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence with no filler and the scoping constraint front-loaded. It is efficiently sized for the sentence it contains, though the same brevity is the source of its specification gaps.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and read-only annotations cover safety. Still, for a search tool sitting beside three siblings, the description omits routing guidance and the required project selector, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 description contributes zero parameter meaning, but the nested WorldBankProjectSearchInput schema documents limit (1-100, default 20), offset, project_id (example 'P123456'), project_name (example 'Rural Education Project') and response_format in detail. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, baseline 3 applies, though the description misses the either/or constraint between project_id and project_name at the top level.

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 (search) and resource (documents) and names the scoping dimension (a specific World Bank project). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling worldbank_search_documents, so an agent cannot tell from the text which search tool to pick.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The description is silent on the fact that either project_id or project_name must be supplied as the selector.

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