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

With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint already declared, the description still adds real context beyond annotations: the 100-per-page cap, cursor-based paging, and that it is free/no-op. Only the return shape is left unstated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; scope, page size, paging mechanism and cost all land in one pass.

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 read-only list tool whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations, the description supplies paging limits, mechanism and cost signal. Only the returned item shape is unspecified, which is minor for a discovery call.

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?

One parameter (cursor) with 0% schema description coverage. The phrase 'with cursor paging' explains the cursor's role, which is the key semantic the schema omits, but gives no format/opacity detail; baseline 3 for a low-coverage single param that is only partially compensated.

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: 'Discover the account's atomic editor projects'. An agent can tell it apart from live editor operations, though it never names the close siblings (soclo_editor_read, soclo_editor_edit, soclo_editor_schema) to sharpen the boundary.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are offered. The agent must infer from the verb that this is the entry point for enumerating editor projects; nothing tells it when to prefer this over soclo_editor_read or soclo_editor_schema.

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