search_spring_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that results come from spring.io/projects; there is no statement about result format, ranking, whether data is cached/live, or how the limit parameter shapes output. For a network-backed search tool this leaves real gaps.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and the scope. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool, though the brevity comes at the cost of the guidance noted above.

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 search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials for invocation are present. What is missing is disambiguation from the many sibling search/get tools, which matters given how crowded this tool family is.

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%, with both 'query' (keywords, with examples) and 'limit' (1-20, default 10) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning (e.g., matching behavior, whether limit truncates or paginates), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Recherche") and resource ("projets Spring") with an explicit source scope (spring.io/projects), so the agent knows this searches the project catalog rather than docs or code. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like search_spring_docs, search_spring_concepts, or search_spring_ecosystem, which are superficially similar search tools.

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 and no mention of alternatives. With four sibling search_* tools plus get_spring_project and find_spring_dependency, the agent is left to guess which search surface applies to its intent.

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