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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds real value beyond that: the exact visibility rule (org + global), the per-row return fields (compensating for no output schema), and a plan gate (PRO+).

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?

Front-loads the scope, then lists return fields and the plan gate in compact sentences; nearly every clause earns its place. Slightly dense but no wasted filler.

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, enumerating the returned fields is exactly what's needed, and the plan gate plus visibility rule round out the picture. Minor gap: pagination behavior beyond the cursor/limit defaults is not explained.

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 67% and already documents limit (default 50, max 100) and category. The description adds nothing about limit, cursor, or category semantics, so it does not compensate for the undocumented cursor parameter. Baseline 3 at this coverage level.

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?

Specific verb + resource + scope: lists project templates and precisely defines the visible set (this org's plus globally-public with organizationId null). This clearly distinguishes it from get_template, instantiate_template, and save_project_as_template.

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 useful context (visibility scope, PRO+ plan gate) but never states when to prefer this over alternatives like get_template or find_similar_projects, and offers no explicit exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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