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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the 200-item cap and the pagination contract (pagination.total plus has_more/next_cursor). This helps the agent understand response paging without relying solely on the output schema.

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 two short sentences with no filler; the core action and optional filter come first, and the pagination detail is added in one clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only/idempotent annotations, a rich output schema, and a five-parameter schema with three well-documented fields, the description gives enough to call the tool correctly. The only small gap is status semantics, but the optional filter and pagination contract are covered.

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 description adds the project-filter semantic for project_id and reinforces limit's cap, while the schema already documents cursor and offset well. However, status has no schema description and is not addressed in the description, so one parameter remains semantically opaque at this 60% schema-coverage level.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource, 'List risks', and adds the scoping condition 'optionally filtered by project'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling risk mutation tools like projects_create_risk, projects_update_risk, and projects_delete_risk.

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?

It provides clear context by stating the tool lists risks and can be filtered by project, and the read/pagination behavior is stated. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use cases or alternatives, but no competing risk-list sibling exists, so the absence is not costly.

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