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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/no-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond them: results are 'resolved live' (not cached), and the visibility scope depends on connection type (account connections see every owned or collaborated site). It doesn't fully spell out what non-account connections return, but the conditional phrasing signals the distinction.

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 tight sentences, no filler, with the identity/scope statement front-loaded and the workflow instruction following. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers the remaining burden — what the tool returns conceptually, live resolution, and how it fits into the call sequence — leaving nothing an agent needs 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; baseline 4 applies. The mention of `project_id` is actually about downstream tools, correctly framed as such rather than as an input here.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List the projects'), with the synonym '(sites)' disambiguating the domain vocabulary, and a clear scope statement ('this connection can work on'). An agent can distinguish it from get_project_details (single project) and from the many list_* siblings by resource.

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?

Explicit sequencing instruction: 'call it first, then pass the chosen project's `id` as `project_id` to the other tools.' This tells the agent both when to use it (as an entry point) and what to do with the output, which is unusually actionable.

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