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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: result ordering (most recent update first), the archived-exclusion policy, the ~100+ project scale, and the '$0' cost signal. Return-shape detail compensates for the absent output schema.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: resource and ordering come first, then filters, then the exclusion policy. The nested parentheticals make it feel cramped, but no sentence is wasted.

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 supplies the returned field list (id, title, status, creative referent, renditionOf) and ordering, plus filtering and exclusion behavior. Together with fully documented params and safety annotations, nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by listing concrete status values (EDITORIAL_BLOCKED, STUDIO_READY, FINAL_REVIEW, PUBLISHED) that the schema lacks as enums, but it gives no additional semantics for 'limit' and only restates 'q'.

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+resource ('The projects in the caller's organization') and enumerates the returned fields, ordering, and rendition lineage. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_versions, list_referents, or get_project_status, which operate on different resources.

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?

Implies its browsing/filtering role via 'q' and 'status' filters and explicitly rules out archived projects ('left out by design'). It does not, however, name an alternative tool for closed/archived projects or for per-project lookups, so the when-not routing is incomplete.

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