Search marketplace projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only the 'public' scope; it says nothing about result limits, pagination, ordering, or what happens when no filters are supplied (zero required params), all of which matter for a search tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is terse to the point of omitting useful detail, but nothing in it is redundant.

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 simple four-parameter search, the inputs and scope are adequately conveyed. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should have said at least what the results look like and default behavior with zero arguments; those gaps leave it only minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it maps all four parameters: 'text' to query, 'category' to category, and 'budget range' to budget_min/budget_max. It lacks format details such as currency and whether budget bounds are inclusive, but the field mapping is complete.

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 names a specific verb (search) and resource (public project listings) plus the three filtering axes. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_project and list_categories, though it never explicitly references those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like get_project for fetching a single listing's detail. Only the implicit context that this is a discovery/browse operation hints at usage.

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