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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful note that results feed job filters, but says nothing about result sets being capped/paginated or what happens when the name lookup matches nothing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the payoff are stated first. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why parameters go undocumented.

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 read-only list tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. With 0% parameter coverage and no mention of pagination for a limit-based listing, an agent must infer too much about how to page through results.

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 carries the full burden. It only gestures at name matching ('by name'), leaving the q search semantics, the required limit (default 20, max 100) and the starting_after cursor completely unexplained.

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 sentence names a concrete verb ('Find') and resource ('workspace projects') and adds the downstream intent (obtaining IDs for job filters and assignments). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names a sibling (create_project, list_jobs) to sharpen the distinction.

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 rather than stated: the mention of 'job filters and assignments' hints at when you'd want project IDs, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to an alternative such as create_project when no match exists.

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