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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: the pagination object structure, the behavior with project API tokens (only returns the linked project), and strict rejection of invalid page/pageSize values rather than silent clamping. It does not describe the exact response format of each project summary, but the description already covers key traits; a 4 is appropriate because it adds significant context without contradicting annotations.

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 a single, dense paragraph that efficiently packs essential information: pagination behavior, defaults/max, token-specific behavior, summary contents, and cross-references to alternative tools. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler, and it is structured logically from core behavior to exceptions and cross-references.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema, but rich interactions with pagination and token types), the description is complete: it covers what is returned (projects and pagination object), the nature of each project (trimmed summary), the token-specific behavior, and validation rules. It also directs to project_get and project_get_settings for additional details, making it fully self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 input schema already provides high coverage (100%) with detailed descriptions for both page and pageSize, including defaults and validation. The description reinforces the validation contract and adds the pagination object structure, but since the schema covers most parameter semantics, the description adds moderate extra value. The baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and the description's additional context raises it to 4.

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 clearly states the tool returns a paginated list of projects the token has access to, with specific details on default and max page sizes, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_get and project_get_settings by noting it returns only trimmed summaries. It explicitly addresses the case of a project API token, which adds specificity beyond a generic list operation.

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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (to list projects, especially many) and explicitly directs to use project_get for full details and project_get_settings for settings. It also mentions a sibling pagination object to page through accounts with many projects, and references the validation contract shared with questionBank_list/questionBank_getItems, aiding tool selection.

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