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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the sort order ('most recent first'), which is mild extra context, but says nothing about pagination defaults or result shape.

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, zero padding; the core purpose and ordering lead, and the downstream hint follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and pagination is covered by the schema. The description supplies scope, ordering and the follow-on tool, leaving only sibling disambiguation as a minor gap.

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% (skip, limit, project_id all documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description restates only the project scoping and adds no format or default details beyond what the schema already carries.

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 and resource ('List saved snapshots for a project') plus the ordering guarantee (most recent first), which an agent cannot infer from the name alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_project_snapshot, so it falls short of a 5.

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 one forward-looking usage hint ('Use a snapshot id as the base for projects_diff'), which is genuine guidance. However, it never says when to pick this over get_project_snapshot, nor any prerequisite like needing an existing project, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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