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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false and openWorldHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful scoping detail that results are limited to the current user's projects and enumerates returned fields, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering despite having limit/offset parameters.

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 with zero waste: scope and return fields first, then the usage directive. Nothing repeats the title or annotations.

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 does partially describe the return shape (slug and project type), which is good, but it omits pagination behavior and whether results are complete or truncated at the default limit of 50. For a paged list tool this gap matters to correct invocation.

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 only 33% — the 'context' parameter is fully documented in the schema, while limit and offset have no descriptions anywhere. The description does not compensate by explaining pagination semantics, page size, or defaults, leaving two parameters entirely undocumented.

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 and resource ('List projects') plus scope ('for the current user') and the fields returned (vanity URL slug, project type web/native_mobile). This clearly separates it from create_project and other sibling list_* tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to ALWAYS call this before creating a new project to check for duplicates, naming create_project implicitly as the alternative. This is a concrete when-to-use rule rather than a vague suggestion.

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