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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the role gating ('Every role but Billing holds it') and the important caveat that includeArchived is silently ignored for a Member rather than erroring. No pagination or rate-limit context, so not a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the scope and return payload, then the parameter behavior, then the permission summary. The field enumeration is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what comes back in the absence of an output 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 compensates by listing the returned fields, and it covers parameter semantics, role gating, and the archived-project caveat. For a single-optional-param read tool this is complete enough to call correctly without further inference.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema's 'Owner and Admin only' by clarifying that the flag is ignored for Members (a silent no-op rather than an error). That behavioral nuance justifies exceeding the 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 and resource ('list_projects') and then enumerates the exact fields returned (id, slug, display name, tags, caps, memory count, levels), which distinguishes it from get_project and the list_* siblings at a glance. The 'live projects' scope plus includeArchived makes the boundary with archived-project siblings explicit.

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 clear permission-based context: includeArchived is for Owner/Admin, ignored for Member, and every role but Billing can call it. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g., get_project or archive_project) or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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