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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by warning that the tool returns only the project list and not real credit numbers, preventing a likely misinterpretation based on the tool name.

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 filler; the core purpose comes first trailing by a clear caveat. Every word contributes, and the note about flow_dashboard is essential and tightly worded.

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 simple: one optional parameter, no output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations. The description fully covers its limited scope—what it does, how to scope it, and why it might be confused with a sibling—so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the account parameter. The phrase 'for a Google account (or all)' conveys that the optional account parameter selects a specific account or includes all projects, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. It could more explicitly link 'account' to the parameter name, but the intent is clear.

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 identifies the operation: checking/list projects for a Google account or all accounts. It also distinguishes itself from flow_dashboard by explicitly stating that this tool only returns the project list, not credit balances.

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?

It explicitly names flow_dashboard() as the preferred alternative when credit balances or an at-a-glance overview are needed. This gives the agent a clear selection rule: use check_credits for project lists, not for credit numbers.

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