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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial value beyond them: the full return shape (id, name, org/project number, role, document count, last-updated), the empty-projects edge case, and the projectsWithoutOrganisation bucket. This is exactly the return-shape context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 dense and longer than typical, but it is front-loaded with the core 'what you get' clause and every sentence earns its place (return shape, routing, edge cases, parameter use). Minor tightening is possible but no sentence is filler.

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 carries the full return-value burden and does so thoroughly, including non-obvious buckets like projectsWithoutOrganisation. Combined with the routing guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and consume this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the organisationId parameter is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description goes further by explaining the purpose of the parameter — disambiguating same-named projects across organisations — which adds semantic value the bare schema line does not.

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 — listing every organisation the user belongs to plus their member projects — and the exact fields returned for each. It is unambiguously distinguishable from siblings like traceable_workspace_map, which it names as the downstream consumer of the projectId.

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?

Explicitly positions itself as the entry point ('Start here') and routes the agent: projectId feeds traceable_workspace_map, organisationId feeds traceable_library_search and traceable_workspace_templates. It also explains when to pass organisationId (to disambiguate same-named projects across organisations), giving both when-to-use and how-to-narrow guidance.

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