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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only profile, but the description adds real behavior: newest-first ordering, default exclusion of completed projects, a 100-item page cap, the cursor chaining flow, and an API-key access requirement. That is meaningful context beyond the structured fields, though nothing is said about rate limits or failure modes.

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?

Six tight sentences lead with what the tool returns, then layer ordering, default filtering, search semantics, pagination, and auth. No sentence is wasted, though the field enumeration and search semantics slightly overlap with the schema.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably by listing the fields and the newest-first order. It also covers pagination and auth, missing only explicit error or empty-result behavior.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by explaining the pagination contract ('pass next_cursor back as cursor') and confirming what search matches against, which is more than the schema alone conveys about the response-driven cursor flow.

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 specific resource (projects) and even enumerates the returned fields (customer, address, stage, contract amount, percent complete), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It implies 'list' clearly but does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like contractor-foreman_get_project or list_estimates.

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 useful implied guidance ('completed projects are left out unless you ask for them') which tells the agent how to control scope. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus get_project or another list tool, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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