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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the result is 'bounded' and includes both Markdown and structured previews, which is context beyond the annotations.

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 with no redundant words. The core action and scope are in the first sentence, and return details in the second. Every part 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?

With zero parameters, a clear scope, and output schema available, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not detailing pagination or the exact structure of the 'bounded' preview, but the output schema and structured preview reduce the need for that detail.

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 are no parameters to document. The description clarifies the return content (project ids, names, locales, timestamps), which is the only meaningful semantic information an agent could need for a parameterless tool.

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 ('List') and resource ('MultiLocale projects the authenticated user has access to'), and clearly indicates the returned elements (ids, names, locales, timestamps). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like add_project or delete_phrase.

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 states it lists projects the authenticated user has access to, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with alternative tools, but for a parameterless listing operation, this is sufficient context.

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