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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond the annotations: archived products are filtered out of the result, which materially affects what the agent sees. It does not describe result shape or ordering, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 short sentences, roughly 25 words, with the core behavior and exclusion rule front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from 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?

For a single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level (projects with their active products) and the narrowing filter, which is sufficient to call it correctly. It omits any indication of the returned field shape or pagination, a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 projectID field is already documented as 'Optional: return only this project's products.' The description's 'projectID narrows the list to one project' restates that in prose rather than adding format, defaulting, or edge-case meaning, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('lists projects with their active products') plus an explicit scope rule (archived products excluded), so the agent knows exactly what set comes back. The closing clause 'useful for choosing the product to work in' implicitly separates it from deeper siblings like product_context and product_modules, which fetch details for an already-chosen product.

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' gives a clear selection/discovery context for when to reach for this tool, which is the natural entry point before product_context or product_modules. It stops short of naming those alternatives or stating any when-not conditions, so it does not reach a 5.

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