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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the default status is active, the returned fields, and the fact that the id can be reused as `project`/`project_id` in other tools. It does not discuss pagination or result limits, which is the only notable gap.

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?

Front-loads the trigger condition, then the return shape, then the routing to sibling tools, ending with a concrete example. Dense but every sentence carries routing or scoping information; the only minor redundancy is repeating the status default already in the schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no prose, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the trigger, the scoping semantics of the returned id, and the default filter, which is everything needed 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% and the single enum parameter is fully documented with its default in the schema. The description's '`status` defaults to `active`' merely restates the schema default, adding no new syntax or semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 ('Lists this workspace's projects') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, status, counts, scope_tag). It also defines what a project is and how it relates to runs/notes, which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_runs or list_notes.

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?

Explicitly says 'Start here when a request names a topic, client or workstream' and names the downstream alternatives (search_notes, list_notes, list_runs, start_run) with the condition that selects them. It also names create_project for the no-match case, so the agent knows both the entry point and the fallback.

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