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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious operational requirement — a personal Storskarvia API key as a Bearer token — and clarifies the data is scoped to the authenticated user's own projects, which the annotations do not convey. No rate limits or empty-result behavior are described.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return detail, then the auth constraint. Every sentence carries weight, though the return-structure detail is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list with a full output schema, this is complete: what is returned, whose data, the ordering, the downstream consumer of the ids, and the auth requirement. An agent has everything needed 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly adds no parameter noise, keeping the schema as the single source of truth for invocation arguments.

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 (list) and resource (authenticated user's Storskarvia projects), and concretizes the resource with examples (novels, screenplays, video scripts). It also specifies the return shape — id, title, binder folder in binder order — so the agent can distinguish it from the sibling list_guides/list_features without opening a 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?

Explicitly links output to workflow: 'A document id is what prepare_factcheck and submit_findings take', telling the agent this is the precursor for those tools. It gives clear context but no when-not guidance or explicit mention of the sibling list tools as alternatives.

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