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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'every' scope and a summary of returned fields, which is useful, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, or any other behavioral traits beyond what annotations already indicate.

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 with no filler. The main purpose and returned content are front-loaded, and the alternative tool is mentioned in a short, actionable second sentence.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional filtered parameter, strong safety annotations, and no nested objects, the description is complete. It tells the agent what is returned, the scope, and when to switch to the sibling tool, so nothing essential is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter, lifecycle, already has a clear enum and description in the schema. The tool description mentions lifecycle as a field but does not add any meaning about the filter parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('every portfolio project') and enumerates the returned fields (title, brief description, lifecycle, tech stack). It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from get_project, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 clearly identifies get_project as the alternative for accessing full body content and screenshots. This directly routes the agent to the correct sibling based on the desired level of detail, which is exactly the kind of when-to-use guidance needed.

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