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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so "Changes nothing" largely repeats structured data. But the description adds a valuable non-annotated requirement: "Needs an API key." It also explains what information is returned, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the API-key note is essential. The phrase "Changes nothing" is redundant with the annotations frod, but the overall structure remains tight and not bloated.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter)Skip? The description covers the core contract: scope, returned data, safety, and auth. However, it lacks detail on exact response shape or edge cases like project-not-found, and "where that is" is slightly vague; these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 sole optional parameter is already fully described in the schema, including accepted forms (id, name, repository) and the leave-out behavior. The description only says "or one project," adding no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Lists the user's projects on The Deployer," and enumerates the output fields (live status, addresses, latest deployment). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan_deploy or redeploy, and it covers both the list-all and single-project modes.

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?

The description implies that this is the read-only status tool, and it adds the requirement "Needs an API key." However, it never explicitly says when to use this over siblings such as logs or check_repo, nor does it describe when to prefer a sibling instead. The usage context is clear but not exclusionary.

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