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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: returned fields, oldest-first ordering, 50-per-page default, and the notable semantics that an empty list means no approved workspace rather than an error.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the entry-point role before the return fields and pagination details. Dense but nearly every clause carries operational information; the field enumeration could be trimmed if an output schema existed, but it does not.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it covers pagination, ordering, and the empty-list case. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the concrete default page size of 50 and the oldest-first ordering that makes cursor pagination predictable. Minor friction: it calls the cursor 'next_cursor' while the schema property is named 'cursor'.

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 the projects this connection can read') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is the entry point that produces the id every other project tool needs. An agent can tell it apart from search and get_project_business_context without opening a schema.

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 when-to-use ('Start here when no project is known'), plus named alternatives for adjacent intents: 'To find a project by name use search; for one project in depth use get_project_business_context.' Routing is unambiguous.

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