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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the paging envelope shape, 25-per-page/100-max limits, that a project API token only returns its own project, and that invalid page/pageSize is rejected rather than clamped. These are behaviorally meaningful traits the annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loads the verb and resource, then layers in paging, entry shape, alternatives, and validation in a logical order. It is dense and slightly overloaded with the reference URI and parentheticals, but nearly every clause carries useful 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so fully: envelope fields, per-page counts, and entry fields (id, name, image). It also covers the token-scope edge case and parameter validation, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the rejection-not-clamping rule. The description reinforces the same paging defaults and validation semantics rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Lists) and resource (projects) with an explicit scope qualifier (\"this token has access to\"). It names and differentiates the two sibling tools that operate on a single project (project_get adds permissions, project_get_settings adds default settings), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear selection context: use project_list to page through many projects, use project_get/project_get_settings when you need one project's permissions or settings. It also notes the project-token scope limitation. No explicit when-not, but the routing to alternatives is unambiguous.

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