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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is low. The description adds genuinely non-derivable context: this is a UI/rendering action and only works in app-capable clients, which prevents an agent from expecting a data payload back.

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 what is shown and immediately followed by the routing alternative. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 zero-param, fully annotated tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, client constraint, and the alternative tool. It could briefly note whether anything is returned or what happens after the user picks (likely nothing to the agent), but 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and it does not misrepresent any.

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 (show/display) and resource (the CiteLadder project picker), plus the goal (let the user choose a project). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings, especially the read_* family and list_projects, since it is a UI-display action rather than a data fetch.

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?

Gives an explicit usage condition ('in clients that display apps') and names the alternative for the agent-driven case ('Use list_projects to find projects yourself'). It does not spell out a when-not-to-use case beyond that, so it stops just short of a full routing rule.

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