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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing plan-quota behavior and that saved templates can be listed with a note explaining when they 'cannot be used', which is meaningful behavioral context an agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

One dense but well-ordered sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then enumerates the returned fields. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical starter examples and the trailing quota sentence make it slightly long for a zero-arg list tool.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates the returned fields (lists, task count, total estimate, relative due-date flag, unusable-saved-template note) and the two template categories. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. No parameter semantics are claimed or needed.

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 (lists) and resource (project templates) and immediately scopes it as 'the templates a new project can start from', which separates it from list_projects and from the mutation siblings create_project_from_template / save_project_as_template. An agent can identify the tool without opening the 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is the discovery step before create_project_from_template, but the description never names that alternative or says when to call it. It does surface a real constraint (free plan keeps 1 saved template, starters cost no place) which is useful context but not routing guidance.

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