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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds domain behavior the annotations can't: deterministic ordering (newest first) and what a project actually contains (screens, theme, design chat).

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the primary action and ordering stated first and the sibling-routing tip placed last.

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 need no explanation, annotations cover the safety profile, and both parameters are documented in the schema. The description supplies the remaining domain context, making it complete for a low-complexity list tool.

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 both limit/offset are fully documented with defaults and bounds, so the description correctly omits them. It adds no extra semantics (e.g., behavior at the 100-item cap) beyond the schema, which is the expected 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+resource ('List the workspace's projects') plus ordering ('newest first') and scope, distinguishing it from the singular get_project and the write-side create_project/delete_project siblings.

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?

Gives explicit usage guidance by naming the sibling it precedes ('Check here before create_project to avoid duplicates'), which is a real when-to-use condition. It stops short of full routing guidance — no mention of when to use get_project instead or how to page through results.

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