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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds genuine behavioral context the annotations lack: a fixed page size of 50 and the nextOffset/null termination contract, which an agent needs to paginate correctly.

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, zero filler. What the tool returns is stated first and the pagination contract second, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained, and the description still supplies the pagination mechanics. For a single-parameter read-only list tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke 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?

There is a single parameter (offset) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the pagination model — 50 projects per page and nextOffset pointing at the next page or null at the end — which effectively documents how offset is meant to be used, though it never states the parameter's unit or that it must be a multiple of 50.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Find construction projects') scoped to the connected Portravo account, and enumerates the estimate statuses covered (draft, review, priced, final), which clarifies scope beyond the title. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as create_project, though the read-vs-create distinction is obvious from the verb.

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 'Find construction projects in the connected Portravo account' but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the siblings (e.g., create_project, run_takeoff). The enumeration of estimate statuses does implicitly tell the agent that no status filter exists, which is mild guidance.

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