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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact fields returned and explicitly stating what is NOT included (designs, layouts), which helps set expectations. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the key purpose and fields, the second provides usage guidance and a negative. Every clause contributes necessary information, and the description is immediately scannable.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists to document return values, and annotations cover the read-only nature, the description provides all necessary context: what it returns, when to call it, and what it doesn't cover. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without ambiguity.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to describe. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately adds no unnecessary parameter detail. It doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps because there are no parameters.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('photobooth projects this operator owns'), and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, public link slug, active status, currency). It also differentiates from siblings by positioning itself as the first call needed to obtain project IDs for filtering other tools, which clearly separates it from get_project and other getters.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this first whenever the operator names a booth' and explains why (you need the project id to filter any other tool by booth). It also states what it does not return ('Does not return booth designs or page layouts'), giving clear exclusion criteria. This is direct and actionable guidance.

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