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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that — no pagination behavior, no indication of what a project record contains, no result ordering. With annotations doing the work, the description contributes almost nothing extra.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the resource statement is front-loaded before the usage guidance. It is efficient, though the first fragment is so terse it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 tool with four filter parameters, no required inputs, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified — it never says what a project entry looks like, how results are ordered, or what the default listing returns. The agent can call it, but cannot predict the response shape.

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% and every parameter (limit, stack, still_live, from_scratch) is documented in the schema itself. The word "filterable" in the description gestures at the filtering capability but adds no semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full load.

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?

"Projects, filterable" is essentially a restatement of the tool name list_projects with no verb or scope statement. It never says it returns a list of past work/portfolio items, so the agent must infer the resource from the name alone. There is no differentiation from siblings like list_services or search_services.

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?

It gives one concrete usage scenario ("has he done X" questions) and an anti-pattern (don't guess from service descriptions), which is genuinely useful context. However, it never names or routes to the obvious alternatives (search_services, list_services, get_service), so the agent must decide on its own which tool fits.

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