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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: results are newest-first, include specific fields, and are paginated via cursor returned as next_cursor.

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 compact clauses, front-loads what the tool returns, and uses the remaining sentence for the essential pagination behavior. There is no wasted text.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned fields and explains the pagination loop via next_cursor. It omits detail about how limit affects results, but for a simple read-only list tool it is otherwise complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 50%. The cursor parameter's schema already says 'next_cursor of the previous page,' and the description reinforces the pagination contract and names the next_cursor return field. The limit parameter is not explained in the description, though its bounds and default are in the 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?

The description clearly identifies a collection-listing operation for projects and names the returned fields plus ordering. It distinguishes itself from get_project by implying a list of multiple projects, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Your projects' and the pagination instruction, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_project or list_videos. It tells how to paginate once selected but not when to select it.

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