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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's one added behavioral fact — that each row carries the id every other tool needs — is genuinely useful for chaining, but pagination behavior and result scoping go unmentioned.

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 short sentences, with the purpose and the anti-duplication intent front-loaded. The internal label "(steady-state entry, A9)" is the only dead weight and could be dropped without loss.

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?

For a simple two-parameter list tool with an output schema, full annotation coverage and 100% schema documentation, the description supplies what the structured fields cannot: why to call it and what the rows give you. Only the omission of any paging cue keeps it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%: cursor semantics (opaque, forward-only) and limit range/clamping are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 your projects") and adds the intent behind it — re-orienting in an existing workspace rather than creating duplicates, which implicitly separates it from create_project. It stops short of naming any sibling outright, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"re-orient in an existing workspace instead of minting duplicates" gives a usable when-to-use signal and hints at the create_project alternative, but the parenthetical "(steady-state entry, A9)" is internal jargon that conveys nothing to an agent. No explicit exclusion such as when to prefer list_catalog or another listing tool.

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