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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It states that the tool returns a JSON string and extracts application domains, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly disclose side effects, error behavior, or additional constraints. This is adequate for a simple getter but lacks depth.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-sentence purpose followed by a clear Args list and Returns line. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundant or fluff content.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only list operation, and the description covers its purpose, parameters, and return type. Since an output schema exists (as indicated by context), the description need not detail the return structure. It could mention that the operation is read-only, but the verb 'Get' strongly implies this, so it is reasonably complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining each parameter: tenant_group_id filters, page is for pagination, and page_size sets the page size. It also notes optionality and defaults, adding meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get projects from Selise Blocks API and extract application domains.' This specifies a verb (Get), a resource (projects), and a distinct outcome (extract application domains), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_schema or get_resource_groups.

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?

The description provides clear context by explaining that tenant_group_id filters projects and that page/page_size control pagination. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the purpose sentence makes it obvious when this tool is appropriate (when needing project data).

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