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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: cursor-paginated last-known snapshots, propagation delay of up to ~a minute for new projects, the 5 s retry path, default consent behavior for new projects, and the hosted-box sleep/wake semantics including that sleeping stops scheduled jobs, bots, queue workers and webhook receivers and cannot be prevented.

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?

Purpose and sibling routing are correctly front-loaded in the first two sentences, but the trailing block on hosted-box sleep/wake and service warm-up is long and only indirectly relevant to listing projects. It is readable and information-dense rather than padded, but it is not tight.

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, no-required-param list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers pagination, latency/sync expectations, routing to the live-detail sibling, consent behavior and infra wake semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret a stale/missing result is missing.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description says 'cursor-paginated' and implies the cursor encodes last-known snapshot ordering, but adds no format or usage detail beyond what limit/cursor already document.

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/discover projects) plus the scope covered: explicitly granted projects and projects on selected machines, including private and empty ones. It also explicitly separates itself from nerdit_get_project, so an agent can route 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?

Names the alternative (nerdit_get_project) and the condition that selects it (need live runtime details), and explains the sync-visibility tradeoff between the two. It gives no explicit 'when not to use' guidance relative to the other list_* siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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