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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which is counterintuitive for a list operation; the description resolves this by disclosing 'May backfill legacy collaboration indexes,' explaining the non-idempotent-write nature. It also previews return contents, though it doesn't describe pagination behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the behavioral caveat and the entry-point hint. No filler; every sentence carries distinct information.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields, and annotations plus the backfill note cover the behavioral profile. Pagination is handled by the schema-described cursor parameter, leaving little an agent would need to call it correctly.

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?

Both parameters (limit, cursor) have full schema descriptions ('Maximum returned records.', 'Last returned ID, for the next page.'), so coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Discover/list) and resource (Creator Flow projects) and enumerates the returned fields: IDs, roles, direct links, final videos. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling get_creator_flow_project by covering 'owned and shared' projects at list scope.

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?

'Start here when the user mentions their project' gives explicit entry-point guidance, which is exactly what a list/discovery tool needs. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., get_creator_flow_project when an ID is already known), so no exclusions are stated.

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