find_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It communicates the return behavior (a project card with status, manager, hourly rate) and implies a read-only search operation. It does not cover every edge behavior like pagination or sorting, but what it states is clear and useful.

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 front-loaded. The first sentence explains what the tool does and what it returns; the second gives usage guidance and points to the relevant sibling. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states the search criteria, return contents, and when to choose this tool. Minor details such as result ordering or limits are absent, but they are not critical for this simple tool.

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% and the single parameter 'query' is fully described in the schema. The description restates the parameter meaning and adds the fact that an empty query returns all projects, which is helpful, but it does not need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 clearly states the tool finds agency projects by code, name, or client and returns a project card with status, manager, and hourly rate. It is easy to distinguish from find_people, which is explicitly named as the alternative for people-related questions.

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 gives explicit guidance: use find_projects when you need facts about a specific project, and use find_people for questions about people. It does not mention utilization_summary, but the provided context and tool name make the intended scope reasonably clear.

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