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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds useful context beyond that: it describes the return shape (requirement keys, labels, content). It omits pagination, ordering, or how large results are bounded, so it is solid but not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource, then the return shape, then the calling constraint. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably ('summary with requirement keys, labels, and content'). Ordering, limits, and pagination are unstated, which is the only meaningful gap for a simple read tool.

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 schema already documents the single 'project' parameter, including how to find its slug. The description adds value by clarifying the calling convention: there is no ambient current project, so the project must always be supplied.

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 all requirements in a dotrequirements project') and names the return content. It is distinguishable from list-projects and search-requirements, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with search-requirements, which is its closest sibling.

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?

Implied usage is clear from the name and description, and it adds a genuine usage constraint ('the caller names the project explicitly — there is no ambient current project'). However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance versus search-requirements for enumerating vs finding requirements.

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