search_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results come in Capsule's default order (no sort parameter), omitting q lists all projects, and the since parameter is ignored when q triggers the /search sub-resource. This goes beyond the schema and provides actionable knowledge. A 4 is appropriate because it doesn't describe edge cases like empty results or response structure, but it does disclose the key behaviors.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then adds the order caveat, then the q-omission behavior, and finally the routing to filter_projects. Every sentence provides distinct value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 search tool with 5 parameters, 0 required, and no output schema, this description covers all essential aspects: what it searches, how to list all, how times and embeds work, and when to use the alternative. Pagination is handled by schema defaults and constraints. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 60%, so q, embed, and since already have descriptions. The description adds further meaning: q is a free-text search that also covers the case of omitting it (list all), and since explicitly warns about its interaction with q. These clarifications help the agent understand parameter semantics beyond the schema. The remaining parameters (page, perPage) are self-explanatory with defaults and constraints in the schema.

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 ('Free-text search') and resource ('projects in Capsule CRM'), specifies that it matches name and description, and explicitly differentiates from filter_projects by naming the alternative and the condition for using it. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous even 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 gives clear guidance on when to use this tool (free-text search) vs filter_projects (structured queries like 'most recent project'), and notes the special behavior of omitting q to list all projects. It also warns about the since parameter interaction, which is critical for correct usage. No inference is required.

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