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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds ordering (newest first) and the presence of status, plus a page-continuation rule, but says nothing about page size default or what a project record contains.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and ordering front-loaded and the paging rule last. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the mention of nextCursor and status is doing real work and covers the paging loop correctly. However, it does not describe the shape of a returned project or whether status is a full list of states, which leaves the agent guessing about return contents for a tool with no schema to fall back on.

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 50%: cursor is documented inline, limit is not. The description compensates for exactly that gap by explaining that nextCursor is passed back as cursor for the next page, which is the one piece of semantics the schema cannot convey without an output schema. It adds nothing about limit, which is left entirely to the schema's default and bounds.

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 names a specific resource ('The workspace's projects'), disambiguates it as videos, and states ordering ('newest first') plus included field ('with their status'). That is enough to tell it apart from list_templates or list_brand_kits, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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: this is the enumeration entry point for projects, and the paging instruction tells the agent how to continue an existing listing. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no note about what other tool to call to get a single project in depth.

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