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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine domain semantics beyond that: projects are lightweight contexts and a task belongs to at most one. It omits return shape/pagination, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is above baseline.

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, zero filler, with the primary trigger front-loaded and the parameter hint last. 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?

For a one-param, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the domain model (lightweight contexts, single-project membership) an agent needs to reason about results. It could say more about what a project record contains, but that gap is minor given the annotations.

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% and the single parameter is self-documenting ('Include archived projects (default false)'). The description only restates that archived projects exist and are opt-in, adding no syntax or behavior beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 projects) and distinguishes itself from the write siblings (create_project, update_project, archive). The added framing — 'you need to know which projects exist before filing tasks into one' — makes the tool's role unmistakable.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user asks about their projects') plus a second motivating use case (pre-flight before filing a task). It does not name a competing alternative (e.g. search or get_context) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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