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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the default exclusion of hidden projects, the archived-vs-hidden lifecycle distinction, and that total is independent of limit/offset. What's missing is pagination behavior at the boundary (e.g., how to detect the last page beyond total), which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with scope, then defaults, then cross-reference, then return semantics. No restatement of the tool name and no filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be detailed, yet the description still flags the one non-obvious field (total). Defaults, filter interactions, and the cross-tenant caveat are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value by explaining the interaction between archived and include_hidden and by clarifying that total is the full match count rather than the page size. It doesn't add anything for limit/offset/tenant_slug beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Paginated browse of projects in the tenant') and immediately scopes it with default filters, which cleanly separates it from kb_projects_get (single-item) and kb_projects_archive/restore (mutations). The archived-vs-hidden distinction is called out explicitly, so an agent can tell which projects this list will and won't return.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use conditions: default active-only, pass archived=true for archived, include_hidden=true to see hidden ones, plus a pointer to kb_projects_hide_toggle for background. It doesn't explicitly say when to prefer kb_projects_get or how it relates to other list tools, but the filtering guidance is unusually actionable.

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