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

Beyond the annotations (which already establish this as a safe read), the description discloses result ordering, the archiving and completion filters, currency semantics for every money field, and the 100-per-page ceiling with the next_cursor chaining rule. That is substantial behavioral context an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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?

The payload-contents sentence is front-loaded and the paging rule is placed last, but the opening is a verbless fragment and the middle compresses filtering, currency, and cost-field breakdown into a dense run. Every sentence is relevant, though a few could be trimmed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it does so by enumerating the project fields and monetary definitions. Combined with ordering, pagination, and filter semantics, an agent has what it needs to call this 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 description coverage is 80%, so limit and cursor are already documented and the description largely restates them ('pass next_cursor back as cursor'). The one piece of added meaning is the interaction rule that completed projects appear when status asks for them, which clarifies the include_completed/status precedence. With the schema doing most of the work, baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource and specifies exactly what each project record carries (customer, stage, dates, contract amount, costs, percent complete), which separates it from get_project's single-record lookup. It never explicitly names a sibling or the word 'list' as a verb, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear inclusion rules: archived projects are excluded, and completed ones are omitted unless include_completed is true or status requests them. It does not point to alternatives such as get_project for a single project or list_project_notes for related data, so there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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