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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false and openWorld=false; the description goes beyond them by clarifying that results are 'metadata only' and that it 'does not invoke provider APIs' — a meaningful distinction in a family full of execute/invoke tools. It does not disclose pagination limits at the end of a cursor chain or any output shape, but the output schema covers the latter.

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 short sentences, each carrying information: scope, pagination discipline, and the metadata-only guarantee. The 'Private draft:' prefix is noise that does not help an agent decide anything.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described. The description covers scope, access modes, pagination and the non-invocation guarantee — enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter and default access behavior.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It explains that 'access' selects one of three scopes (owned / granted / free) and maps to the enum, which is real added value. However, the cursor parameter is actually named 'cursor' in the schema while the description calls it 'nextCursor', and the 'limit' parameter is never mentioned at all, so compensation is only partial.

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 API projects this account owns, has an active discovery grant to use, or may discover through a free metadata policy'), which tells an agent exactly what set is returned. It does not explicitly differentiate from the nearest sibling, list_provider_access_requests, so it stops short of 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?

'Use one access mode with nextCursor for stable pagination' gives guidance on how to combine parameters, which implies the iteration pattern. But there is no statement of when to choose this tool over list_provider_access_requests or discover_tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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