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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds behavior they cannot express: it is free/no credits, it queries the database only, it excludes archived projects, and it warns that a null `domain` is a legitimate state rather than a failed lookup. That null-domain caveat prevents a real misdiagnosis.

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?

Four tight sentences ordered by importance: what it is, what it costs, when to call it, what comes back plus the gotchas. No filler, and the practical warning about `domain` is placed right where an agent would need it.

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 carries the return-shape burden itself by listing {id, name, domain, url}, and it covers cost, scope, and downstream prerequisites. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

There are zero input parameters, so the schema imposes no burden and the baseline is 4. The description goes beyond parameters by documenting the returned field set and how to map `id` to `projectId`, but it doesn't need to do more here.

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 ('Lists the active projects in the user's organization') and immediately scopes it ('Archived projects are not listed'), which distinguishes it from sibling listers like list_ahrefs_projects or list_portfolios. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger condition: 'Use this whenever you need a `projectId` for another MisarSEO tool,' and even names downstream consumers (get_keyword_gap, get_link_intersect) that depend on the record's `domain`. This is a when-to-use rule an agent can apply directly.

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