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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the members-only access requirement, the categories of resources returned, and a documentation link. It does not detail pagination or exact return shape, but the bar is lower given the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with what the tool lists, followed by usage, access constraint, and docs link. The first sentence is a dense enumeration that could be slightly tighter, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough context: what it returns, when to use it, and the members-only restriction. Minor gaps like pagination or output format are not disqualifying given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage.

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 100%, and the single projectId parameter is documented in the schema as coming from findUserProjectsTool. The description adds no additional parameter meaning or syntax, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (rikma resources: links, in-progress resources, open resources, products), making the scope unambiguous. It also contrasts itself with suggestion behavior ('before suggesting one'), implicitly distinguishing it from proposeProjectLinkTool.

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 clear use case ('check whether a rikma already has a website/repo before suggesting one') and a prerequisite ('Members only'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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