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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: keyless access, return shape ('compact project shape with financing, sectors, and dates'), and sort order ('newest board-approval first'). It omits pagination or error details, but the added context is sufficient for a safe read operation.

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 two concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the verb, resource, key options, and return shape.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains return shape, ordering, authentication (keyless), and filtering. It lacks explicit pagination behavior, but the schema documents default and max limits, and the tool's simplicity makes this omission acceptable.

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 covers all parameters with full descriptions, defaults, and examples (100% coverage). The description adds only minimal parameter-related context, such as 'filtered by status', which is already inferable. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('List') and a precise resource ('a country's World Bank projects') with ordering and filtering context ('newest board-approval first', 'filtered by status'). It stands apart from broader tools like search_projects by emphasizing country-scoped listing.

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 implies usage when you need projects for a specific country, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_projects or get_project. No when-not guidance or alternative names are provided, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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