Search projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: budget filters are applied client-side to the fetched page because the site has none, and up to 50 projects per page are scanned. It doesn't mention rate limits or the returned card fields, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler. Scope comes first, then use case and sibling routing, then the behavioral caveat — appropriately front-loaded and dense with actionable information.

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 9-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, and the trickiest behavioral trait (client-side budget filtering). It characterizes results only as 'compact cards' without indicating what fields they carry, which is the one remaining gap for a tool that returns data to the agent.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the interaction between budget filters and pagination ('up to 50 projects per page are scanned'), which affects how an agent sets page/limit when filtering by budget — a semantic detail the schema does not convey.

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 Ponisha projects') and immediately names the filter dimensions (text, skills, category, status, budget), so an agent can distinguish this from pn_search_freelancers without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('find work to bid on or see what employers ask for') and names concrete follow-up alternatives: pn_project for the full brief, pn_bids for offers already made. The division of labor between search and detail tools is unambiguous.

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