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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context beyond annotations: searching is by title and the return contract is 'ids with links'. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure, though it stops short of describing edge cases or result limits.

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 sentences, no filler. The primary function and return value are front-loaded, and the sibling routing is given in a compact second sentence. The parenthetical '(the ChatGPT search contract)' is slightly jargon-heavy but does not add meaningful length or reduce clarity.

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?

The tool is simple (one required string parameter), has full annotation coverage for safety, and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return fields. It covers what the tool searches, what it returns, and when to use sibling tools. Nothing necessary for correct invocation 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the query parameter. It does so by specifying that the search is 'by title', which gives the parameter clear meaning. While it doesn't describe fuzzy matching or case sensitivity, for a single simple query parameter this is adequate compensation.

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 ('Searches'), a specific resource ('the user's saved projects'), and a specific search dimension ('by title'), and says it returns ids with links. It also names sibling tools (fetch, list_projects) for related tasks, so an agent can clearly distinguish this from alternatives.

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 routing guidance: 'Use fetch for the detail of one result; list_projects for browsing with filters.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool versus the closest alternatives, leaving little to inference.

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