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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond those: it reveals the result is a bounded page (pagination) and that only ids and names are returned, which is not implied by annotations. This enriches the agent's understanding of the response shape and iteration.

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 wasted words. The primary purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed by the return field scope and pagination instruction. Every clause earns its place, and the structure 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?

An output schema exists (signal indicates true), so the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the key operational details: bounded page, returned fields, and cursor continuation. It does not mention default sorting or behavior with no results, but these are likely captured in the output schema or are minor for a list tool. Overall, sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Both parameters (limit and cursor) have full descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description's mention of 'opaque cursor' mirrors the schema's description without adding new meaning or constraints. The baseline of 3 applies because the description does not supplement the schema with additional parameter-specific guidance.

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') and resource ('projects') and clarifies scope ('bounded page' and 'in the signed-in organization'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_batches and list_templates. It also notes the return fields (ids and names) which aligns with the intended follow-up use, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: it returns only ids and names needed for follow-up project, template, and batch calls, implying it's the entry point for those operations. It also gives pagination guidance ('Use the opaque cursor to continue'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling set makes this inferable.

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