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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only profile, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely useful cross-tool context: amounts are bare numbers and get_organization_settings must be called for currency_code. This is behavioral guidance not present in the schema or 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then filters, then the currency caveat. No filler or repetition beyond the schema-echoed enums.

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 responsibly flags the amounts/currency issue, and pagination behavior is covered by the schema defaults. It stops short of describing the return shape, but for a straightforward list tool this is close to complete.

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 already documents page, search, status, per_page, and health_status. The description's list of health enum values merely repeats the schema's own enumeration, adding no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List capital projects'), which an agent can distinguish from the many other list_* siblings by the resource noun. It does not explicitly route between similar tools (e.g. list_project_tasks), but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the filtering guidance ('Filter by status or health status') but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative among the large list_* sibling set. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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