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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add context. It does so by specifying that results are a bounded page, that internal org ids and project configuration are omitted, and that API-key sessions are pinned. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action and scope, the second adds two crucial behavioral notes (pinning and omissions). No fluff or redundancy.

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 an output schema present, return values are covered elsewhere. The description covers the essential context: what is listed, for whom, and what is deliberately omitted. Combined with annotations and 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% with both parameters (limit and cursor) fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

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 a clear verb (List) and resource (projects) and defines the scope (bounded page for the authenticated organization). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_instances or show_project_overview, so it misses the top score but is still unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage context by noting that API-key sessions remain pinned to a single project, suggesting this tool may be limited for such sessions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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