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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the required scope ('Requires credentials.read') plus what data comes back, including the organisation-level extra-project quota. No contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return contents, then the usage note and auth requirement. The middle clause is dense ('with each one's registry path, repository count and how many robots reach it') but every clause earns its place by describing output fields.

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 does the work of describing the return shape, and it adds the auth requirement and call-order guidance. It is sufficient for a zero-parameter read tool, with only minor gaps around pagination or quotas exceeding the default project.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, organisation-scoped call without inventing options that do not exist.

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 verb and resource ('List the organisation's projects on the Ankra registry') and enumerates the returned fields: registry path, repository count, robot reach, and extra-project allowance. This clearly separates it from the general list_projects and from list_registry_robots.

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?

Explicitly names two prerequisites-style call sites: 'Use this before create_registry_robot or delete_registry_project.' It does not mention nearby alternatives such as list_registry_robots or get_registry_storage, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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