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. The description adds useful behavioral context — one grant per project and the default ordering — but says nothing about pagination or the structure of a grant. With annotations carrying safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single tightly written sentence that front-loads the resource and then the notable behavioral detail. It is appropriately sized and wastes no words, though it is short enough to leave a little room unexploited.

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 rich annotations and full schema coverage, the safety and parameter story is handled elsewhere, and the description covers cardinality and ordering. However, with no output schema it does not describe what a grant actually contains (e.g. permissions or scope), leaving that gap unfilled.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented. The only value the description adds is the default sort order ('most recently shared first'), which the generic sort enum description does not state. That is a marginal addition over the schema, so baseline 3 holds.

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 and resource: 'Lists the projects a skill is shared with', which is precisely what a skill grant is. It distinguishes this read operation from the grant_skills_add/delete siblings by implication, though it never names them. Clear purpose, but no explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name (you call it when you need to see where a skill is shared), and 'most recently shared first by default' hints at default behavior. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no named alternatives such as grant_skills_add.

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