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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it warns that the manager may have other beta projects not visible here, and defines each lifecycle state's tester-visible consequence ('draft' invisible to testers, 'published' testers cannot participate yet, 'paused' testers blocked). That is exactly the operational context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the 'call this first' routing cue before the detail. The state enumeration is long but each entry carries distinct meaning since there is no output schema; still, the list is the largest block and could be slightly tightened.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields and fully decoding the state enum. Combined with the visibility caveat and the downstream productId dependency, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing extra the description could add here. It correctly does not waste space restating an empty 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 specific verb and resource ('List the beta projects you manage in this Stomio workspace') plus the exact fields returned (id, name, lifecycle state, url). This clearly separates it from sibling list tools such as listBetaManagers and listOrganizationUsers.

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 'Call this first to obtain the productId required by the other tools', giving both ordering and rationale. It also discloses the exclusion rule (only beta projects with AI features enabled), so the agent knows when results will be incomplete.

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