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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and closed-world, so the closing 'Read-only.' is partly redundant. The description nevertheless adds real behavioral context: scope is limited to projects 'the connected account can access', and the 7-day lookahead window on deadlines defines what data appears. It says nothing about result volume or pagination, which the annotations do not cover.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and then the returned fields, so an agent gets the gist immediately. The middle section is one long run-on clause chain, and the final 'Read-only.' sentence duplicates the annotations.

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 carries the return-value burden and does it well by enumerating the per-project fields and the upcoming-deadline block. Only minor gaps remain: ordering of projects, result size for large portfolios, and how archived projects are treated.

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?

Only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so includeArchived is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about its effect on results (whether archived projects appear in the rollup counts), which is the one place it could have helped.

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+resource ('status overview of all projects') and enumerates what each entry contains — status with reason, actual vs planned progress, dates, slippage in working days, overdue tasks — plus a second section on deadlines due in the next 7 days. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling planitude_list_projects or planitude_get_project, so an agent must infer that this is the aggregate view.

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?

'Use it for questions about all projects at once' gives a clear selection condition pointing to the aggregate use case. It stops short of naming alternatives (list_projects for a plain list, get_project for a single project), so the exclusion half of the guidance is left implicit.

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