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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail beyond that: result ordering (newest first), a hard page size cap (50), and the cursor-following protocol. It stops short of describing what happens when the organization has no projects or how the included organization is embedded.

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 zero filler. The core purpose and ordering come first, pagination mechanics second, and the optional parameter last — a clean front-loaded structure.

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 three-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: scope, ordering, page size, how to continue paging, and the optional expansion. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the `include` whitelist and the cursor protocol. The description's mention of `include` ('load the parent organization') largely restates the schema's 'Whitelisted: organization' and adds no format or syntax detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List the projects'), scopes it ('within an organization'), and adds an ordering guarantee ('newest first'). An agent can immediately distinguish this from get-project-tool (single project) and list-organizations-tool (different resource) without opening any 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?

The description gives operational usage for pagination (omit cursor on first call, follow nextCursor) and notes `include` is optional, which is helpful context. However, it never states when to choose this tool over siblings such as get-project-tool for a single project, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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