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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'List your projects,' implying a read operation, but does not mention authentication (api_key parameter), rate limits, pagination behavior, or output format. The schema reveals parameters like 'ownership' and 'search', but the description adds no behavioral context.

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?

The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but this brevity sacrifices important information about the tool's capabilities, such as pagination and filtering. It is not as informative as it could be while still being concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, output schema, pagination, search, ownership filter, API key), the description is insufficient. It does not mention pagination behavior, filter options, or the output schema structure, leaving the agent lacking critical context for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, nor does it clarify parameter interactions or usage patterns.

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 action ('list') and the resource ('projects'), distinguishing it from singular 'get_project' and other resource-specific tools like 'list_datasets'. However, it does not elaborate on the scope or any additional filtering capabilities hinted at by the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_project' for a single project) or when not to use it. The description lacks exclusions, prerequisites, or usage context.

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