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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs added context. It delivers: sorting by name, default page size of 25, and the exact fields returned. It does not mention auth requirements or cursor expiry, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences: the triggering condition first, then the return shape and the boundary. No filler and nothing that repeats the title verbatim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still previews the fields and the ordering. Combined with annotations and a fully documented 2-param schema, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 limit and cursor are fully documented in the schema. The description restates the 25-per-page default but adds no paging semantics beyond it, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (list) and resource (Tutorializer projects), plus when it's needed (to obtain a project id). The closing sentence explicitly separates it from sibling territory ('languages or voice settings'), so an agent can route between list_projects, get_project, and show_project_overview without opening schemas.

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?

Names the triggering user intent ('which projects they have') and a concrete secondary use (fetching a project id), and adds an explicit exclusion ('Not for a project's languages or voice settings'). When-to-use and when-not are both present.

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