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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses key behavioral facts: Version 1 is always immutable and present, earlier versions remain renderable after newer ones exist, and API key + ownership are required. This adds significant context about access and invariants that 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?

The description is compact, with four sentences each carrying distinct information: the main action and outputs, the immutable v1 invariant, the cross-tool renderability, and the auth requirement. No wasted words and the main verb is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, simple list operation), the description covers purpose, output fields, ownership, immutability, and cross-tool integration. The output schema exists, so detailed return-value documentation is not needed. The description is fully complete for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter, project_id, explaining it is the ID returned by house_specify for an authenticated call. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('every stored version of a durable house project you own'), with details on ordering and returned fields. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like project_get and project_list by focusing on version history, not project details or listing projects.

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 usage context by mentioning ownership and API key requirements, and explicitly notes that earlier versions can be rendered via palette_pdf's project_version input, which implies a cross-tool use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it doesn't fully reach a 5.

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