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

Annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so 'read-only' is partly redundant. The description does add cost context ('Free') and discloses the includeArchived behavior, but says nothing about result shape, ordering, or pagination — modest value over the annotation.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose and free of filler. Every sentence carries information, though the 'Then ...' clause is slightly awkward as a placeholder next-step rather than a usage condition.

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 trivial one-optional-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the parameter behavior, cost, and safety. It does not describe the returned project representation, which is a minor gap for a discovery tool an agent may need to interpret.

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 carry the lone parameter, and it does: 'archived ones too with includeArchived:true' precisely explains what the boolean does and its default-off behavior. This compensates well for the undocumented schema.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('the user's projects') and clarifies scope via the parenthetical about archived projects. It does not directly contrast itself with siblings, though the sequencing hint toward lavela.project_overview implies the read-then-drill-down relationship.

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?

'Then lavela.project_overview for one of them' hints at a workflow and names the natural follow-up tool, giving implied usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, and no conditions distinguishing when to reach for this versus other listing/discovery siblings.

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