search_projects

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds value by explaining the configured default team behavior when team_id is absent. No contradictions with annotations; no additional behavioral traits like result format or pagination are disclosed.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core purpose and scope, the second explains the fallback behavior. Every word earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only search tool with two fully documented parameters, complete safety annotations, and no output schema requirement, the description covers the necessary behavior. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds the useful nuance that omitting team_id uses the configured default, but otherwise does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 action (search by name) and resource (Figma files across all projects in a team), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_project_files or get_file_info. The scope is precise and immediately actionable.

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?

The description conveys clear context: use this when searching files by name across a team, and it explains the default behavior when team_id is omitted. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is apparent.

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