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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description is free to add what they don't cover — the page size of 50 projects and the meaning of nextOffset, including that it is null on the last page. That is real behavioral detail an agent needs to paginate correctly; the only gap is that result ordering, which matters for offset stability across calls, is never stated.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the resource/scope and status coverage lead, the pagination contract follows. Nothing is repeated from the title and no sentence is wasted.

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 an output schema present and a single optional parameter fully described, the definition covers what an agent needs to call and page through this tool. The one omission is ordering/consistency of results across pages, which is material for a single-parameter offset-paginated list but not fatal.

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% and the offset parameter is already well documented in the schema, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns above that by disclosing the fixed page size of 50 and tying offset to the previous page's nextOffset, which the schema alone does not establish.

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 (find construction projects) and scopes it to the connected Portravo account, plus enumerates the estimate statuses actually covered (draft, review, priced, final). That is more precise than the name alone and clearly separates it from create_project, though it never names a sibling tool to contrast against.

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' and the pagination mechanic tells the agent how to continue a listing loop, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings such as get_takeoff or create_project, and no stated prerequisite for having a connected account.

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