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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: page size (50 projects per page) and how to advance through results. It stops short of describing ordering or total counts.

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: scope first, then pagination mechanics. No filler, everything 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 detail is unnecessary, and pagination is the main gap an agent would need — which the description covers. Only the offset/nextOffset naming inconsistency and absent ordering/limits keep it from being fully complete for a read-only listing 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?

The schema's single 'offset' parameter has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the pagination model and the 50-per-page size, which gives 'offset' meaning, but it refers to the continuation value as 'nextOffset' rather than the actual parameter name 'offset' — a naming mismatch that could confuse invocation.

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 plus resource ('Find construction projects') and enumerates the statuses it covers (draft, review, priced, final estimates). It is distinguishable from create_project and the takeoff siblings, though 'Find' is slightly weaker than 'List' given the tool name.

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 (enumerate projects in the account) and it gives pagination guidance ('Use nextOffset to continue'), but it never states when to prefer this over siblings like create_project or list_pricing_markets, nor any exclusions.

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