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

The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses the read-only nature. The description adds value by specifying that it returns all projects and lists the exact fields, which is useful context beyond the annotation. It also implicitly states the scope (user's projects), which is not captured in the annotation. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence in Dutch, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word adds value: it specifies the action, scope, and output fields. No unnecessary information is present, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explicitly states what is returned and the fields included. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly without additional documentation. The annotation further confirms the safety profile, so nothing 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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100% (empty schema). The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to elaborate on parameter details since there are none. It effectively communicates what is returned, which is sufficient.

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 verb ('Geeft' = returns), the resource (alle projecten = all projects), and the scope (van de gebruiker = of the user). It also lists the returned fields (id, naam, gearchiveerd), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tasks or create_note.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: to retrieve all projects of the user. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is so specific that an agent can infer when to select it over siblings. No direct alternative for listing projects exists among the siblings, so the guidance is sufficient.

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