filter_projects

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the API does not support ad-hoc sort, and Capsule IDs are monotonic so newest id = newest record. This tells the agent about a real API quirk and how to compensate. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance and the sort workaround. The second sentence is dense but every clause earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 read-only filter tool with a rich schema and safety annotations, the core usage, sibling routing, and the key API limitation are all covered. The only minor gap is the absence of any mention of the return shape, but for a filter tool the response (matching project records) is predictable and the schema already documents pagination caps.

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 50% — conditions, field, operator, and value are richly documented in the schema, while page and perPage rely on defaults. The description adds strategic guidance for crafting conditions (date-range filtering plus highest-id selection as a sort substitute), but it does not compensate for the undocumented pagination parameters or explain embed usage beyond the schema's token list.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Filter projects') plus the condition dimensions ('date ranges, status, tags, owner'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from list_projects. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the 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?

It names the alternative explicitly ('Use this — not list_projects') and gives concrete query examples ('most recent project', 'projects opened this month'). It also explains the API's no-sort limitation and the recommended workaround, so selection logic is fully specified.

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