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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read. Beyond that, the description discloses a real behavioral trait: returned amounts are bare numbers with no currency, and a second call to get_organization_settings is needed to interpret them. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry. It stops short of describing pagination or default result size, which live only in the schema.

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 what the tool does, then filters, then the currency caveat. Nothing is padding, though the enumerated health values duplicate the schema and slightly dilute the conciseness.

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 does carry some return-value burden and it discharges the most important part: the currency-less amount caveat plus the follow-up call needed. Pagination and default page size are only in the schema, and returned field shape is unaddressed, so a small gap remains.

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, per_page, search, status, and health_status. The description restates the health_status enum (already present in the schema) and says nothing new about status's accepted values or the search/page semantics. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List capital projects") and names the two filterable dimensions, so an agent knows exactly what entity it operates on. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_project or the many list_project_* tools, but the scope is still clear.

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?

It gives the two available filter axes and a genuine cross-tool instruction (call get_organization_settings for currency_code before reporting an amount), which is useful usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_project or list_project_assets-style siblings, nor any exclusions, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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