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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the exact fields returned per project and the pagination contract (endCursor passed back as `cursor`), which the annotations cannot convey.

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 in the first clause, then usage, then return shape. Two sentences with essentially no filler, though the second sentence is dense with a list of returned fields.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description summarizes them anyway and explains pagination. With annotations covering safety and full schema coverage on parameters, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters including defaults and enum values. The description only reinforces the cursor parameter, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 organization's projects') plus the three capabilities the tool supports (filtering, sorting, cursor pagination), which distinguishes it from siblings like project_overview, project_stats, and similar_projects that operate on a single or related project.

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?

Gives explicit use cases: discover/disambiguate projects, resolve a project the user named, or page through a large set. This is clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use this (e.g. when the project id is already known and project_overview is better).

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