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

Annotations already mark this as a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: archived projects are excluded unless include_archived=true, the timeline is plan-gated, and each project includes an app_url. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and key parameters, but the final three sentences about app_url, shared view URLs, and plan-gated timeline add contextual detail that is not directly necessary for invoking the tool. It is compact but contains some tangential information.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the required company_id, filtering flags, pagination hints through schema, and even return-value context (app_url). It is missing a full statement of what the response object contains, but the rest of the context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains company_id, include_archived, and filtering by id/title/description, which clarifies the tersely named icontains fields. It does not explain page/page_size semantics, but those already have schema descriptions, and 'search' is mentioned without a matching schema property.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the projects of a company.' It clearly distinguishes this listing tool from siblings like retrieve_projects by describing collection-level behavior, filtering, and archived-project exclusion.

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 provides clear context for when to call the tool: listing a company's projects, requiring company_id, excluding archived by default, and supporting filters. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling such as retrieve_projects, so it falls just short of full alternative guidance.

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