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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description correctly focuses on behavior: the return shape (id, name, live state, future schedule count) and the page size of 20. With no output schema, that return context is genuinely additive, though it omits what happens on a truncated page beyond the offset parameter's own note.

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?

Six sentences, but front-loaded with purpose and the operational cue, and each sentence carries either scope, entry condition, return shape, or the alternative tool. The template definition of 'project' is the only sentence that could be trimmed for a reader already versed in the domain.

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 read-only 3-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies ordering, page size, entry fields, an entry condition, and the sibling to use for detail work. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 limit, offset, and the status enum are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the ordering ('newest first') and the 20-per-page default, adding little beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List the LiveReacting projects on this account, newest first'), defines what a project is, and explicitly names livereacting_get_project as the single-item alternative. An agent can distinguish it from all siblings without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit entry condition ('Start here when the customer names a stream but you do not have its id') and routes to the alternative tool for detail retrieval. Nothing about when to pick this versus livereacting_get_project 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.