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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by scoping results to 'this operator owns' and explicitly stating what it does not return (booth designs, page layouts), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is compact and structured with three front-loaded sentences: the first presents the primary function and output fields, the second gives usage timing and rationale, and the third states an exclusion. Every sentence carries essential information with no filler, and the core verb 'List' appears at the very beginning.

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 parameterless read-only list tool with an output schema present, the description is fully adequate. It covers purpose, when to call it, why to call it (project ID for filtering), and what it explicitly does not return, making the tool's behavior and role among siblings clear.

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 input schema is empty, so there is nothing to explain. Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to add parameter details because none exist.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'photobooth projects this operator owns', enumerating the returned fields (id, name, slug, active, currency). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project (singular) and other statistics tools, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: '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 provides an exclusion by stating 'Does not return booth designs or page layouts', which helps the agent avoid using it for those needs.

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