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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds key behavioral context beyond annotations: it queues a hosted job (async operation), and results must be retrieved via get_job. This is important context not captured in annotations. It doesn't describe rate limits or auth details, but the async disclosure is valuable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose then the follow-up action. No wasted words.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential async workflow and the retrieval path via get_job. It doesn't explain pagination (limit/cursor) or what 'redacted summaries' contain, but the core operation is understandable.

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 50%, so the schema documents two of four parameters (requestId, workspaceToken) while limit and cursor lack descriptions. The description doesn't add meaning for limit or cursor, but the async/job context implicitly explains the presence of requestId. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage and no additional param details in the description.

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 (redacted summaries from the workspace project store), which is clear. However, 'redacted summaries' is slightly ambiguous — it's not immediately obvious whether these are project summaries or summary statistics, and the description doesn't distinguish from sibling inspect_project or get_workspace.

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 explains the async pattern: 'Queues a hosted job; use get_job to retrieve its result.' This tells the agent when and how to follow up. It doesn't name when-not to use it versus inspect_project, but the queuing guidance is clear context.

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