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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value beyond that by disclosing exactly which fields come back (id, name, last deploy, notice total, rejected count, deploy count, error-group counts) — meaningful for a tool with no output schema. It does not disclose pagination behavior, which is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Three compact sentences: purpose and returned fields first, then the routing hint, then the raw API endpoint. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information 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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing return contents, which is the main information an agent needs. The only gap is that it never mentions result pagination despite exposing page/limit parameters, though the schema covers those.

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% and both page and limit are documented with defaults, ranges and maxima in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 Airbrake projects') plus the scope of visibility ('your user can see'), and enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from airbrake_get_project (single project) and the other list_* siblings.

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?

'Start here to get a project_id' gives an explicit entry-point context that orients the agent relative to tools like airbrake_get_project and airbrake_get_project_stats that need a project_id. No explicit when-not or alternative routing is given, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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