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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are limited to what the token can read (authorization scoping) and it enumerates the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema. Pagination and empty-result behavior are still unmentioned.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the return fields inline. The second sentence about .env.local and src/relia.ts is somewhat cryptic and file-path-heavy, but it earns its place by explaining where a project id comes from.

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 parameters, no output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies the two things an agent actually needs: what comes back (id, name, plan, role, services) and that visibility is token-scoped. Nothing essential for calling this tool is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.

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 the resource and scope precisely: the Relia projects this token can read, with an inline field list (id, name, plan, role, services). The verb is only implied by the title ('List'), but the scope qualifier clearly separates it from relia_create_project and relia_check_setup. It is clear, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of RELIA_PROJECT_ID / project_id suggests this tool is how you discover a project id for other calls, but the description never says 'use this to find your project id' or when not to use it. An agent can infer the use case but gets no explicit routing versus relia_check_setup or relia_setup.

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