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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the status grouping hint, and that hint ('pipeline, active, completed') does not line up with the schema's actual enum values (pitched, won, in_progress, completed, lost, all), which is mildly confusing rather than clarifying.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. The only deduction is that the second clause covers statuses in a way that creates ambiguity rather than structure.

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 three fully documented optional params and complete annotations, the core call mechanics are covered. However, there is no output schema, so the description should say what a returned project looks like or whether results are paginated, and it ignores the company-scoping requirement that matters when an account has multiple companies.

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 search, status, and company are already fully documented, and the baseline applies. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior beyond loose status naming that conflicts with the schema enum, and it omits the important multi-entity 'company' scoping note.

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 projects') and names the status groupings it covers, so an agent knows it returns project records rather than a single project. It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like get_project_pnl, get_tasks, or list_opportunities, which is the one thing keeping this below a 5.

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?

'Use when the user asks about their projects, deals, or pipeline' gives a clear triggering condition and useful synonyms that broaden matchability. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to alternatives such as get_project_pnl for financials.

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