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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about behavior — sort order, filtering, mine requiring an API key — but does not disclose details like pagination behavior or rate limits. It doesn't contradict annotations, and given readOnlyHint coverage, a 3 is appropriate because the description contributes some but not extraordinary behavioral context.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then lists the key variations and the mine constraint. There is no waste — every clause earns its place.

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 browse/search tool with zero required parameters and a 100%-covered schema, the description is nearly complete. It doesn't explain response format — but there's no output schema and it's a read-only listing tool, so an agent knows the shape will mirror a project list. Minor gap: pagination is described in the schema (offset/next_offset) but not surfaced in the description text, yet the schema covers it.

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 the schema documents each parameter. The description overlaps with the schema by summarizing sort, mine, query, and category, but it adds little new meaning beyond reinforcing the API-key requirement for mine and the default sort order. The baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the load.

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 clearly states the tool browses or searches the Shipyard feed, distinguishing it from siblings like get_project (which fetches a single project) and ship_project (which creates one). It also enumerates sort, filter, and query capabilities, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (browsing or searching projects in a feed) and specifies that mine=true requires an API key. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when list_projects is the right choice versus ship_project or get_project.

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