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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are limited to what the key can see, a project-scoped key collapses the result to one project, and workspaceId falls back to the credential's workspace. It doesn't discuss pagination or ordering, but the added visibility/fallback semantics are substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return fields, then usage, then the parameter note — a sensible order. The parenthetical field enumeration is dense but every item earns its place by telling the agent what it can read off the response. Slightly heavy for a single-parameter list tool, but no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the returned fields and the meaning of the ambiguous ones (kind = initiative/product/null, projectLabelId → list_project_labels). Combined with the default-workspace behavior and the downstream projectId purpose, nothing needed to call this 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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter — and it does: workspaceId is defined as 'el workspace donde operar', with list_workspaces named as the way to discover values and the default behavior spelled out ('Sin él se usa el de la credencial'). That is everything an agent needs to decide whether to pass it.

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 ('Lista los proyectos visibles para la key') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, status, leadId, dates, color, icon, kind, projectLabelId), which distinguishes it from siblings like save_project or project_team_stats. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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 names the downstream consumers ('Úsala para obtener el projectId que piden list_issues, list_docs, save_issue o save_doc') and points to list_workspaces for enumerating workspaces. It also explains the scoped-key edge case ('Con una key acotada a un proyecto devuelve solo ese'), leaving no ambiguity about when to reach for this tool.

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