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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the returned field set, which lets an agent decide whether one call suffices. It does not mention default filtering behaviour or result-set size, which matters for an agent reasoning about completeness.

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: the first establishes scope and payload, the second establishes when to reach for it. Nothing is redundant with the title, and the usage cue is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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?

For a three-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, naming the returned fields is exactly what the description owes. Minor gap: it does not say that archived projects are excluded by default, though the status enum documents this in the schema.

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 100% and all three parameters are optional with documented defaults and enums, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about limit, status, or language, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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 ("Lists the projects in the connected VEDUTUM account") and then enumerates the return fields (id, client, floor-plan read state, last change, points left). This is clearly distinguishable from vedutum_get_project, which retrieves a single project by id.

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 first when the person talks about one of their projects, to find its id" gives an explicit activation condition and implicitly orders it ahead of vedutum_get_project. It stops short of naming that sibling as the follow-up call or stating when not to use it (e.g. when the id is already known).

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