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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating it returns all projects and listing the exact fields (id, title, slug, webUrl, icon, goals_count), which is especially valuable given there is no output schema.

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 concise sentences accomplish everything: the main behavior, the optional parameter, the return fields, and a pointer to the alternative tool. No filler or redundant information is present.

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 read-only list operation with one optional parameter, the description is complete. It covers the full request semantics, the response contents, and the sibling tool to use when more detail is needed.

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% for the single optional status parameter, and the schema already documents the allowed values (active/archived/paused). The description merely repeats this filter concept without adding syntax, formatting, or behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('List all projects') and resource, and specifies the optional status filter and returned fields. It distinguishes itself from project-get, which is a sibling tool for full details, so an agent can easily tell them apart.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use an alternative: 'Use project-get for full details with goals breakdown by status.' This tells the agent that project-list is for summarized lists, while project-get is for deeper detail.

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