search_builds

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the return payload, but says nothing about result caps, ranking, or the lexical (non-semantic) matching that the schema mentions only for the query field.

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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Dense but every clause carries information; the return-shape list could arguably be trimmed since it overlaps with the schema's fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming what comes back, and the usage boundary against content tools is stated. Missing pagination/ranking guidance and clarification of limit behavior, but adequate for a simple search tool.

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 75%, so the schema largely documents query, area, limit and source_only itself. The description adds only the notion of "keyword" searching and does not explain area's exact-label constraint or source_only's non-guarantee beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Clear verb+resource ("Find projects by keyword") and it explicitly enumerates the return payload (build IDs, listing details, match terms, catalog coverage). It differentiates itself from the content-oriented siblings by stating source contents require separate tools, though it never contrasts with get_build.

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?

"Use for discovery" gives an affirmative use case, and "source contents require separate tools" supplies an explicit exclusion routing the agent to search_build_content/fetch_content. It stops short of naming get_build or clarifying when a known ID should bypass search.

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