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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, but the description adds that the call is free and specifies the returned contents including generated views. It does not discuss pagination or response formatting, but the added cost and content disclosure is meaningful beyond the annotation.

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 and front-loaded: it states what is listed, notes that it is free, then explains the practical use of the returned tags. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 list tool with one fully documented parameter, no output schema, and readOnlyHint annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers what is returned and how the output is intended to be used downstream.

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?

There is only one parameter, project_id, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents its meaning and format. The description implies project scoping but adds no syntax or format details 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: list the props of this project. It also names the included fields (@prop_ tags, descriptions, generated views), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as lab_list_characters or lab_list_locations.

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 explains how the returned tags are used in image and video prompts, including lab_generate and lab_reference_motion, which gives useful downstream context. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool versus related tools like lab_prop_ansichten or lab_create_prop.

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