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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: results are ordered newest-first, include creation time, and are paginated with hasMore/nextOffset. It does not disclose rate limits or result cap behavior, 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 core purpose, followed by trigger conditions and pagination mechanics. Every sentence carries actionable information; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 describing what comes back (projects with creation time, ordering, pagination cursor fields). All four parameters are covered by the schema, and usage triggers plus pagination are fully specified, leaving no gap an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the pagination contract (when hasMore is true, call again with offset=nextOffset), which ties the offset parameter to a return value the schema cannot express since there is no output schema.

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 (find) and resource (the projects/rikmot the current user belongs to), plus ordering (newest first) and returned field (creation time). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like getProjectDetailsTool, listProjectResourcesTool, or listRikmaProcessesTool.

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 explicit trigger conditions: when the user mentions a project by name, wants to navigate to one, or just created one. It also states the pagination follow-up rule. It does not name a specific alternative sibling to avoid, so it falls just short of a 5.

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