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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds ordering behavior ('most recently updated first') and authentication scope ('authenticated account's'), which go beyond the annotations. However, pagination and return format are not addressed in the description, leaving some transparency to the 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?

The description is a single compact clause that front-loads the action and purpose, with no filler words. It could be more grammatical, but the em dash effectively separates the what from the why. It earns its place while remaining short and scannable.

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 list tool with rich schema (100% param coverage) and safety annotations, the description covers the essential context: the account scope, ordering, and intended use for get_project. It doesn't explicitly mention pagination or response fields, but those are documented in the schema or implied by the listing purpose. An agent can invoke it correctly with the given information.

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 parameters (after, limit, nameContains), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level information, but the schema already carries that burden effectively. No extra semantics are introduced.

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 names the resource ('projects') and adds defining details: the authenticated account's projects, sorted by most recent update. The phrase 'how to find an id for get_project' gives a concrete downstream purpose, distinguishing it from get_project and other list_* siblings. Together with the title, it unambiguously specifies what this tool does.

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 gives a clear use case: finding an id for get_project, which tells the agent when to reach for this tool. It does not name alternatives or explain when not to use it, but the sibling context (get_project, list_folders, list_parts) makes the selection obvious. The absence of explicit exclusions prevents a 5.

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