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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the description adds real value beyond them: it states source code is never returned (a security/data-scope constraint) and that names are user-defined text. It also implies access scoping via 'permitted project'. Pagination behavior past the first page is not described.

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?

A single efficient sentence front-loads the action and scope, then appends only the two facts that cannot be inferred from structured fields (no source code, free-text names). Nothing is redundant.

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 correctly enumerates the returned fields, which is the key gap it needed to fill. Remaining gaps are how to page forward (next cursor) and what happens for a project with no functions or insufficient permission — minor for a read-only list operation.

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 0% for all three parameters, so the description must carry the burden. 'One page' implies limit/cursor pagination and 'permitted project' implies projectId, but neither the cursor semantics nor the 1–50 limit range nor the projectId format are clarified.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — listing Functions scoped to a permitted project — and enumerates the fields returned (trigger, auth mode, status, route, latest deployment). It implies a singular getter is the alternative (eurobase_get_function exists) but never names or distinguishes it explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'one page of Functions of a permitted project' suggests this is the enumeration entry point when you don't yet have a function identifier. No when-not guidance and no named alternatives among siblings such as eurobase_get_function or eurobase_list_function_deployments.

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