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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: archived products are excluded, and the default return is a project's first active product. This helps the agent predict output shape without contradicting the safe-read annotation.

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?

A single compound sentence that leads with what is listed and then qualifies scope and defaults. Efficient, though the semicolon-joined clauses are slightly dense.

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 read-only, single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, what is filtered out, and the default selection. Sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so projectID is already fully documented as an optional filter. The description restates that it 'narrows the list to one project' but adds no extra syntax or format meaning, so the baseline of 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 ('Lists projects with their active products') and adds scoping detail (archived products excluded). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like product_context or product_modules, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Useful for choosing the product to work in' provides an implied use case, giving some context for when the tool applies. However there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer product_context), leaving usage largely to inference.

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