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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), yet the description adds real behavioral detail: return ordering (main sequence first, then newest-first) and the field names that encode that ordering (ist_haupt, haupt_sequenz_id). It also warns that trailers, titles and blocks are sequences too, which prevents a false assumption about what appears in the list.

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: purpose plus ordering first, then the 'what counts as a sequence' caveat, then the usage rule. No filler, though the density of domain terms (ist_haupt, haupt_sequenz_id) makes it slightly dense on first read.

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 usefully describes the return shape's ordering and key fields and clarifies the non-obvious inclusion of trailers/titles/blocks. Nothing critical is missing for a single-parameter read tool, though it could hint at whether the list is paginated.

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 schema description coverage is 100% including its origin (lab_list_projects) and type. The description adds no extra semantics about that parameter, so the schema is doing all the work and baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a project's sequences') and immediately qualifies the scope by enumerating what counts as a sequence (main sequence, trailers, opening titles, blocks). It separates itself from lab_create_sequence by explicitly framing the call as a way to obtain a seq_id rather than mint a duplicate.

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 states a positive use case ('find a seq_id instead of creating a second sequence for the same cut') and names the alternative it replaces. It also gives a decision rule for downstream editing: work on the main sequence unless the person names another.

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