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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the most-recently-changed ordering and the exclusion of personal notebooks; it does not mention pagination or limits, but that is a minor gap for a read-only list tool.

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 a single dense sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the action, ordering, and returned fields, followed only by the necessary sibling and exclusion notes.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the ordering, returned fields, excluded scope, and sibling alternatives. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description compensates by explicitly stating what _id means and that it is the notebookId other notebook tools accept, which is not in the schema. It does not add semantics beyond the projectId parameter, which is already fully documented.

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 and resource ('List a project's notebooks'), the ordering ('most recently changed first'), and the returned fields with a cross-reference for _id. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from fastero_read_notebook and notes the exclusion of personal notebooks and separate Python/Streamlit list tools.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool over fastero_read_notebook ('reads one's cells') and explains that personal notebooks are not listed, while pointing to fastero_list_python_projects and fastero_list_streamlit_apps as alternatives. Nothing 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.