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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by disclosing the exact return fields and the 'when available' caveat for live domain, plus the scoping to 'the user's' projects—useful context beyond the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. The structure is ideal: statement, return-value summary, and usage guidance in a compact form.

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 (1 optional param, no nested objects, output schema present), the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool lists, returned fields, and when to invoke it. There are no significant gaps that would impair correct selection or invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single optional 'status' parameter. The description does not mention the parameter or add any extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, hence the baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('List the user's DreamAgent projects') and clearly distinguishes the tool's role from siblings like create_project or get_project_status. It also adds the specific returns (name, ID, type, status, live domain), grounding the purpose in concrete output.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('when the user asks to see, find, select, or check their projects') and even provides a prerequisite usage ('ALWAYS before modifying a project when its ID is not already known'). It does not name alternative tools, so it stops short of a fully explicit alternatives wnen/wnen-not breakdown.

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