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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral hint — 'Each row carries the id every other tool needs' — but says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or result volume beyond what the schema and output schema already provide.

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 sentences and front-loaded, which is good, but the parenthetical '(steady-state entry, A9)' is internal shorthand that spends tokens without informing an agent. Roughly half the text earns its place.

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 a full input schema, a declared output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needed to orient the agent — which it does by positioning the call as the steady-state entry point and noting the id payload. Nothing essential is missing, though naming the read-only, non-mutating nature explicitly would have rounded it out.

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%, so 'after' (opaque forward-only cursor) and 'limit' (1..100, default 20, clamping) are already fully documented in the schema. The description contributes nothing parameter-specific, 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?

The opener 'List your projects' is a clear verb+resource, and 're-orient in an existing workspace instead of minting duplicates' implicitly distinguishes it from create_project. The internal jargon '(steady-state entry, A9)' adds no meaning for an agent and slightly muddies an otherwise clean statement.

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?

It gestures at when to reach for this tool ('re-orient in an existing workspace instead of minting duplicates'), which is useful context, but it never names an alternative sibling (create_project, list_briefs, list_compositions) or states an explicit when-not condition. Usage remains inferable rather than spelled out.

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