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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the auth requirement (sign-in or agent key), deterministic ordering (newest first), and the fields returned. It stops short of pagination or rate-limit behavior.

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 tight sentences with the resource and ordering front-loaded and the auth condition attached at the end. No filler or restatement of the title.

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, describing ids, sizes and durations is exactly the kind of return-value context needed, and the auth precondition is covered. The only real hole is pagination/default behavior around 'limit'.

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 0% and the single optional 'limit' parameter is never mentioned in the description, so no default, pagination, or truncation behavior is explained. The schema itself bounds it (1-100), which keeps this at a baseline 3 rather than lower.

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 (list) and resource (CutLuma projects) with explicit scope: only the signed-in user's projects, newest first. That scope plus the plural distinguishes it from the singular get_project sibling, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

"Needs the user's sign-in or an agent key" gives a usable prerequisite, but there is no guidance on when to pick this over get_project or search_cutluma. Usage is implied by the resource scope rather than stated.

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