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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the access requirement (mcp:read scope) and a full inventory of what the response contains, which is not derivable from the empty 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource contents and appends the access requirement in parentheses. No filler, no repetition of the title 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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the scope requirement covers the main invocation blocker. A note on freshness or whether limits are live vs cached would close the remaining gap.

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 the baseline is 4; the description correctly does not invent parameter discussion. Nothing about argument semantics is missing because there are no 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?

The description enumerates exactly what the call returns — organisation, signed-in person, usable projects, plan usage/limits, granted scopes — which is specific enough to separate it from list_projects and list_sessions. It lacks an explicit verb ('Returns…'), reading as a payload list rather than a stated action, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no routing to siblings like list_projects. The required scope note ('Requires scope mcp:read') is the only prerequisite given, leaving usage to be inferred from the payload description.

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