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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description stays consistent with them. It adds real context beyond the annotations: results are scoped to the calling user's projects, and pricing in downstream exports is denominated in each project's localization currency — a non-obvious semantic the agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler: what it returns, what the returned fields imply downstream, and why the agent needs it. The most actionable fact (most tools need a project_id) is front-loadable but sits at the end as a natural call-to-action.

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 need no explanation, and with no parameters the calling burden is nil. The one gap is operational: nothing says whether the list is paginated or ordered, which matters for a user with many projects.

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 there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly makes no parameter claims and instead spends its words on what the returned records mean.

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 projects of the user') and enumerates what each record contains (id, name, localization, paying customer). That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like scout_list_exports, scout_list_websites, and scout_list_jobs without opening any 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?

'Most tools need a project_id' tells the agent this is the discovery step that unblocks the rest of the toolset, which is clear usage context. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming the sibling that already returns project-scoped data, so it is strong but not complete routing.

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