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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description nonetheless adds real behavioural context beyond them: the authorization scoping rule ('a member with only a project assignment sees only that project') and the visibility scope tied to the token/session. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but for a small 0-param list that is minor.

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 core is front-loaded in the first sentence, but several follow-on sentences are domain modelling (ADR 0022, what belongs to exactly one project vs organisation-wide, and especially 'Users, roles and billing stay organisation-wide') that do not help an agent call a 0-parameter list tool. Useful context is padded with tangential taxonomy.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape and does so by listing the returned fields. It also covers the authorization scope. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it is missing, though ordering/pagination behaviour is unstated.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic context for interpreting the result (which fields identify a project and what 'default'/'current' mean) without needing parameter documentation.

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 names the resource ('the projects of the organisation this token or session is bound to') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, slug, default flag, current flag), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearest sibling, get_current_project, which returns only the single active project, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative tool. The reference to `ankra project list` is a CLI equivalence, not a routing hint among MCP siblings. The only guidance is implicit scope ('the organisation this token is bound to').

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