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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: login requirement, plain-text output with total/totalPages, and page-size default/max. It stops short of describing rate limits or failure modes.

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-loaded with purpose and usefully sectioned (用途/ページング/サンプル/入力/出力). Some content (paging defaults, range/sample relationship) duplicates the schema, which slightly inflates the length.

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 compensates by specifying the return format (id+title plain text, trailing total/totalPages). Inputs, paging, filtering, and sibling relationships are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself already documents range values, workspace_id source (auth_check), and paging defaults. The description restates paging and the omitted-range default, adding only marginal meaning beyond the schema, 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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ("ユーザが閲覧権限を持つプロジェクト/ADL構成図の一覧を返す") and disambiguates from siblings by stating that official samples come from list_samples, not here. An agent can distinguish this from get_content and list_samples 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?

Explicitly states when to use it ("作業対象のプロジェクトの特定", as the starting point before get_content) and names the alternative for samples (list_samples). The range semantics also document what is included/excluded by default.

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