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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by naming the fields surfaced per item (owner, due date, score, response) and by disclosing the failure mode on Free plans. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or what an empty register returns.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the plan constraint as a secondary note. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: purpose, returned fields, roles, and plan gating are all present. The only gap is the absence of any statement about result ordering or size limits.

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?

There is a single parameter (projectId) at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds the concept of project scoping but no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema states; this is the baseline 3 case where structured data does the work.

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 supplies a precise verb and resource ('List a project's RAID register') and spells out the RAID acronym and the fields returned, so an agent can immediately distinguish it from create_raid_item/update_raid_item/delete_raid_item. It never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Any team role. Pro plan only (a Free workspace gets a plan-limit message)' gives concrete caller preconditions and an explicit exclusion for Free workspaces. It does not, however, contrast this tool with other retrieval routes (e.g. list_projects or search_calls-style filtering), so when-to-use remains implicit.

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