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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the 'can read' authorization scope, which is useful, but says nothing about result volume, truncation, or how paging behaves despite the cursor parameter.

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, zero filler, with the entry-point guidance front-loaded immediately after the purpose statement.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema list tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient; an agent knows what it gets and when to call it. The one real gap is paging behavior, which the schema only hints at via `cursor`.

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 only 50%: `cursor` is documented but `limit` has no description and no default, and the description says nothing about paging size or iteration. For a list tool where pagination governs correct usage, the description should compensate and does not.

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 adds a real scope qualifier: only projects this connection can read. It does not name a sibling alternative, but among ~45 mostly read_*/prepare_* siblings, 'list the projects' is unambiguous about what resource is returned.

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?

'Start here when no project is known' gives an explicit trigger context, which is genuinely useful for a discovery tool in a large sibling set. It stops short of saying when not to use it or naming a follow-up tool once a project is known.

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