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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the returned project name being consumed by downstream tools, but doesn't describe details like whether output is paginated or sorted. For a read/list tool with solid annotations, this is baseline adequate.

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 wasted words. The first sentence states purpose, the second provides navigation guidance. Every phrase 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 simple 2-param list tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is complete. It tells the agent what it returns (project names) and how to use them downstream. Could mention default behaviors (excludes completed) but the schema covers that.

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 parameters (limit, include_completed) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't repeat or add parameter details, which is fine since the schema does the heavy lifting. 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Lists projects in OmniFocus'. It distinguishes from siblings by pairing with list_omnifocus_folders and describing the returned project name as a feed into list_omnifocus_tasks/create_omnifocus_task/search_omnifocus_tasks. This makes the purpose 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?

Explicitly says 'Start here for OmniFocus (alongside list_omnifocus_folders)' and names the exact downstream tools that consume its output. This is strong when-to-use guidance and differentiates it from list_omnifocus_folders and list_omnifocus_tags.

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