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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two pieces of context annotations can't carry: a per-call cost ($0.05) and the API-key requirement, plus the archived-filtering default. It stops short of noting pagination, limits, or empty-portfolio 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 returned-field inventory up front and the archive rule and cost/auth note following. No filler, though the parenthetical cost/key note is compressed into a single parenthetical rather than integrated as guidance.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what's returned, the archive default, and the cost/auth prerequisites. Since an output schema exists, it need not describe return values, and the remaining gaps are minor.

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 schema already explains include_archived as 'Include archived rows, e.g. false.' The description's 'Archived ones only with include_archived' restates the default behavior in slightly plainer terms, adding marginal meaning. This is the baseline 3 case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

It names the resource ('the user's Projects portfolio') and enumerates the fields returned (name, slug, status, kind, description, updated_at), which makes the tool's output scope clear at a glance. The verb is implicit in the name rather than stated, and there is no explicit differentiation from siblings like get_asset or get_context_pack beyond the resource noun.

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?

The description gives a concrete conditional rule — archived projects appear 'only with include_archived' — which is genuine usage guidance for the one parameter. It does not say when to reach for this tool versus another portfolio-like sibling, so the broader when-to-use question is left to inference.

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