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

readOnlyHint=true covers the safety profile, and the description goes well beyond it: it discloses ordering ('vibe coder's own order, front first'), result shape ('bounded summaries'), state semantics, and planning significance ('first two positions are the planning ideas'). It stops short of stating default limit/pagination behavior, so not a full 5.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then state semantics, then the planning nuance, then the sibling routing. Every clause carries information and none is padding.

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 no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return as 'bounded summaries' and points to get_idea for details, and it covers ordering. It does not describe pagination defaults or the limit/offset interplay, a minor gap for a read-only list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning over the schema's terse enum by defining archived ('completed') and declined ('decided against and carry the reason'), which helps the agent interpret results per state.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List a project's ideas') plus scope ('in one state as bounded summaries') and ordering. It is clearly separable from get_idea ('Call get_idea for full content') and from the archive_/delete_idea siblings 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?

It explains what each state value means (active is default, archived=completed, declined=decided against with a reason) and routes to the alternative, get_idea, for full content. This gives the agent an explicit basis for choosing both state and tool.

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