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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that clients are only named where they consented — a genuine authorization nuance — but says nothing about ordering, result volume/pagination, or read-only status, which an agent calling a list endpoint would benefit from.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the content is front-loaded ahead of the filtering note. The return-field enumeration in sentence one is slightly long but each item is informative rather than padding.

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 low-risk read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns and how to filter, which is the core need. It still leaves the locale parameter's meaning and any notion of result set size or pagination unaddressed.

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 only 33%: industry is documented, while locale and service have bare enums with no explanation. The description partially compensates by naming the industry and service-line filters, but it leaves locale entirely unexplained (is it an output language or a filter?) and never clarifies the build/grow/care service values.

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?

The description states the concrete resource (projects Polargate has delivered) and even enumerates the returned content — client attribution, outcomes, stack, live site link. It reads clearly against the singular sibling get_case, but never explicitly frames itself as the list-level counterpart, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

"Filter by industry or service line" gives usable invocation context for two of the three parameters, but there is no when-to-use guidance relative to get_case, search_site, or list_services, and no conditions under which the tool should be avoided.

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