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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing "Read-only" is largely redundant. The real added value is the disclosure of what is returned (name, ID, number of codes, total scans), which fills the gap left by the absence of an output schema.

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 tight sentences: the when-to-use clause is front-loaded and the return-value sentence follows immediately, with no filler or repetition beyond the minor "Read-only" tail.

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 trigger, the scope, and the returned fields, leaving pagination and sorting to the fully documented schema. Complete enough to invoke correctly, with only sibling routing left implicit.

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 100%, so every parameter (q, page, sort_by, per_page, sort_order) is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the optional name search and adds no format or usage detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (see/list) and resource (QR code projects/folders), clarifies that projects are folders, and notes the secondary use case of finding a project ID. It implicitly separates itself from list_deleted_projects and list_qrcodes by naming the resource scope, though it never names an alternative sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ("Use this when the user wants to see their QR code projects... or find a project ID") and mentions the optional name filter. It does not state when a sibling such as list_deleted_projects or list_qrcodes should be preferred instead, so no explicit exclusions.

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