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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: ordering ('newest first'), pagination ('cursor pagination'), and view semantics (what active/archived/trash mean).

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by key lifecycle-view details. 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?

Given the simple list operation, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It covers ordering, pagination, and view filtering; no output schema means no obligation to describe return values.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for the 'view' parameter by explaining that active hides archived/trashed and that archived/trash reveal them, which the schema does not fully clarify.

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 ('projects') with scope ('you own or can access'). Clear enough to distinguish from get_project, but does not explicitly name alternatives, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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?

Describes view behavior and defaults, implicitly indicating usage for enumerating projects. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., get_project, search_workspace) or when-not-to-use conditions.

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