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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — results are restricted to projects owned by the calling API key and are sorted by most recent change — but it says nothing about default page size, truncation, or what happens when more than 'limit' projects exist.

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, no filler, with the ownership scope and sort order front-loaded before the search hint. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations plus full schema coverage handle safety and parameters. The one remaining gap for a list tool that allows limit up to 1000 is the absence of any pagination or default-page-size statement.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the 'full' cost warning (~7 KB per project). The description only re-explains 'search' in similar words and adds nothing about 'limit' or 'full', 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List projects') plus the scope ('owned by the authenticated API key user') and the ordering ('newest change first'). The resource itself separates it from siblings like list_characters or list_series, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It hints at when to use the search parameter ('to find one by words from its name or prompt') but gives no when/when-not guidance against related tools such as search_viral_videos or get_project_status. Usage has to be inferred from the resource name.

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