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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: required APS scopes, rate limits (50 req/min, pagination), fan-out pattern (1 hubs call + N project calls), specific error codes with remediation (401, 403, 404, 429, 5xx), and side effects (none, read-only, idempotent). This goes far beyond what annotations would provide.

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 appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with clear section labels (When to use, When NOT to use, APS scopes, Rate limits, Errors, Side effects). Every sentence provides actionable information without fluff, and the most critical usage guidance is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description is complete for an agent to decide when to call this tool and what to expect. It covers prerequisites, error handling, performance pitfalls (fan-out, rate limits), and side effects. The only minor omission is the exact return shape, but the purpose and usage are sufficiently clear.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining why no parameters are needed (walks all accessible hubs automatically), which is implicit but helpful.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Enumerate every ACC and BIM 360 project') and resource ('projects'). It also specifies the scope ('all accessible hubs'), which differentiates it from sibling project-specific tools that require a known project_id.

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 provides when-to-use (discovery of project IDs before other calls) and when-not-to-use (skip if project_id starts with 'b.', avoid repeated calls, cache results). Names alternatives by implication (any tool needing a project id) and gives clear exclusions.

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