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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond them: the returned fields (id, name) and the default page size of 25, which tells the agent to expect paginated, summary-level output. It does not explain what happens at the end of the cursor chain, but that is minor.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and followed by return shape and exclusion. No filler or restatement of the title; every sentence carries information.

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, so return-value detail is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the trigger, scope, pagination default, and a boundary condition, leaving little for an agent to guess.

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%, so both limit and cursor are already documented with defaults, ranges, and format. The description only echoes the 25-per-page default and says nothing about cursor behavior, so it adds little beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (list image projects for the connected account) and adds the scope of returning identifiers for later project operations. The negative clause 'Not for a project's processed images' helps separate it from image-level siblings, though it never names get_project as the single-project alternative.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user wants to list image projects...') and adds a when-not condition. It stops short of naming the sibling to use for a single project (get_project), so an agent still has to infer the routing for non-list cases.

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