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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description confirms 'Read-only' consistently. It adds ordering (most recently changed first), pagination mechanics and the shape of the response beyond what annotations provide, though it does not discuss rate limits or auth.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then filtering, then return behavior — a logical order. It is dense and slightly run-on in the middle, but each sentence carries operational value.

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 burden of describing returns and does so ('projects', 'total', 'offset', and how to fetch the next page), plus ordering and filtering. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 all five parameters are fully documented in the schema with enums, ranges and examples. The description only restates the filter and paging groups ('Filter by query, folder or kind; page with limit and offset') without adding syntax or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with scope ('Lists the projects of the user's organization, most recently changed first') and enumerates the returned fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_folders, get_scene and get_launch_video, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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 a concrete use case ('find the project_id the other tools need or to see what the user already made') and names the alternatives with their conditions (list_folders for the folder tree, get_scene/get_launch_video to look inside a project). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both explicit.

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