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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing that creations may carry external_id to match a request-creation result 'still being saved' — i.e. eventual consistency and possible partial visibility, which 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?

Two sentences with zero waste; the core listing behavior is stated first and the external_id nuance follows. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile; the remaining gap is that the relationship to get-context (the stated source of the ids) is only implied by the schema, not stated in the description.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented with bounds, an example, and the note that inaccessible projects are omitted. The description only echoes 'one or more projects', so the schema does the heavy lifting — baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific verb (List) and resource (project sources and creations) scoped to one or more projects, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get-context or read-artifact, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 only implied: you call it to inspect project state. The second sentence hints at a polling/matching workflow against request-creation, but never states when to call this tool versus get-context or when to re-call after request-creation.

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