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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It transparently labels the approach as a 'Lightweight heuristic' and explains the matching logic ('overlap of tags + adjacent categories'), signaling this is not an exhaustive or authoritative search. It stops short of describing output format or ranking, but the core behavioral caveat is present.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the purpose, scope, and heuristic with no filler. The main action is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the input domain, the result concept, and the algorithm. It does not explicitly describe return value shape, but the tool is simple enough that the description is nearly complete.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter with 'Project name or slug to look around.' The description adds useful restrictions by specifying that the project should be a single Celestia ecosystem project, narrowing the domain beyond the generic schema text.

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?

States a specific action ('find others'), a concrete resource ('Celestia ecosystem project'), and the result type ('complementary tags/category that could plug in'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling find_similar_projects by emphasizing complementarity rather than similarity.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you have one Celestia project and need complementary collaborators. The 'Celestia-specific' note gives an explicit boundary, though it does not name alternatives or contrast with similar sibling tools.

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