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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive semantics, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful extra context beyond that: the underlying GET /api/projects call and the pagination behavior ('Returns one page at a time'), which tells the agent results must be paged through.

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?

Three short sentences with no redundancy, front-loaded with the core purpose. The endpoint and pagination notes each earn their place.

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 list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly and flags pagination. It could say more about the shape of a returned page, but the low-risk read nature keeps this adequate.

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 the schema already documents every parameter, including the enum and range. The description only restates search, pagination, and sorting at a high level without adding format or syntax detail, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List active projects') and scopes it with 'active', which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_deleted_projects. It never explicitly names that sibling, so it stops short of a 5, but an agent can still tell the two apart.

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 implies when the tool is used (list + optional search/pagination/sorting) but offers no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never routes the agent to alternatives such as list_deleted_projects. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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