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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by warning that it does NOT return real credit numbers, only the project list, which is a meaningful limitation beyond the annotations.

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 with no wasted words. The primary action is stated first, followed by a crucial caveat and routing to the alternative tool. The structure is ideal for quick agent parsing.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the main limitation. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it does not do, and when to use a sibling instead.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the 'account' parameter refers to a farm account and that null/all is supported, but it does not specify the expected format or whether account is an ID, name, or other identifier. This is partial compensation for a single optional parameter.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Check projects for a farm account (or all).' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from flow_dashboard by noting it only returns the project list, not credit balances. This prevents confusion with a similarly named sibling.

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 gives explicit guidance: prefer flow_dashboard() when credit balances or an at-a-glance overview are needed, and use this tool only for the project list. This directly tells the agent when to choose an alternative and when to use this tool.

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