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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations cannot: a domain caveat that legacy fields (status, paid_for_service, requested_build, build_complete, rebuild_credits, free_rebuild_expires_at) must not be read as payment or delivery facts. It still says nothing about result shape or volume.

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 tight sentences with the capability stated first and the routing/interpretation caveats after. The enumeration of legacy field names is long but earns its place because naming them is what prevents a wrong inference.

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 read-only, single-optional-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the definition covers purpose, a sibling alternative, and the main interpretive hazard. With no output schema, the return values of the snapshot mode (what status/progress/health actually contain) are left implicit, which is the one real 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already carries the access-verification warning and the five-character format. The description implies that a project code narrows the call to a snapshot rather than a list, but never states that relationship directly, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ("List projects") and adds a second mode ("read a status/progress/health snapshot"), then bounds scope with "not full settings or credentials." The distinction from sibling bdk_next is named explicitly, though boundaries against bdk_check/bdk_whoami remain unstated.

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 an explicit alternative for one adjacent need ("Use bdk_next.commerce for ledger entitlement and current requests") plus a when-not clause on settings/credentials. Coverage is partial: it does not say when to call this versus bdk_check, bdk_whoami, or bdk_configure, and it never states that supplying project_code selects the snapshot mode.

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