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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a useful behavioral caveat that project status is owner-reported, but it does not clarify filtering behavior around paused/completed projects or how the results are scoped, especially given the status enum includes more than just 'ongoing'.

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?

Two short sentences with the main action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence earns its place by warning about the reliability of status data. Nothing is redundant or overly verbose.

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?

Annotations handle the safety aspects, but the description leaves the 'before' parameter unexplained)Skip; it does not clarify how the status parameter relates to 'ongoing', and there is no output schema to describe the return shape. For a tool with two optional parametersings, this is a meaningful completeness gap.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It indirectly maps 'ongoing' to the active status and explains the resource focus, but it leaves the 'before' parameter entirely unexplained, making one of two parameters semantically opaque.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and a specific resource ('shared projects'), further narrowed by scope: ongoing projects, their contribution needs, and next milestones. This clearly distinguishes it from singular tools like read_project and write tools like save_project. The owner-reported caveat adds useful domain specificity.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used when an agent needs an overview of current shared projects and their needs, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as read_project for single-project details or list_requests for contribution requests. No when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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