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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value on top: result ordering (most recently edited first), the default page size of 10, and the notable visibility trait that the output reaches only the agent and not the user. It does not cover pagination or error behavior, keeping it below 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?

Two compact sentences that lead with what is returned and immediately follow with the sibling contrast and the paging rule. Slightly dense phrasing ('as text that reaches only you: the person sees none of it'), but every clause carries information.

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 explaining the return: projects with ids, newest-first ordering, default 10 results, and a total matching count. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has what it needs, though pagination beyond the default is unaddressed.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description's statements about limit and search largely restate them. It does add that total counts every match, which frames how the params relate to the returned count, but the parameter meaning itself is not extended much beyond the schema baseline.

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 (lists) and resource (the account's Cardboard projects), plus the ordering and the exact fields returned (ids). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling show_projects, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative show_projects and the condition that selects it (output for the person in a chat card vs. text that only the agent sees). That is a clear routing rule, though there is no explicit statement of when-not to call this tool.

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