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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses what the payload contains and that the list is nearly static, which is genuinely actionable cache guidance that annotations cannot express. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but for a small static list that is minor.

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: the first front-loads the returned fields, the second the routing condition and the caching caveat. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

A zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint — the description covers purpose, trigger, and caching, which is sufficient to call it correctly. Only the explicit contrast with get_project_context/search_project 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of project_id refers to an output field consumed by other tools, not an input, so it does not mislead.

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?

Names the resource (the user's projects) and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, last activity, open tasks), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_project_context or search_project, which are the closest siblings.

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?

"Нужен project_id — сюда" gives a concrete trigger condition (you need a project_id), and "список меняется редко, не перечитывай" adds a caching rule that prevents redundant calls. No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, but the usage context is clear.

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