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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the endpoint and some returned fields, but does not discuss pagination, included relationships, or other behavioral details beyond what the schema provides.

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 short and front-loaded: purpose first, then filtering/ordering, then endpoint. Every sentence contributes useful information without waste.

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?

Given the rich schema coverage and helpful annotations, the description is mostly complete for a list tool. It could mention pagination or included relationships more explicitly, but the schema covers those details.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds some meaning for tag filtering and ordering, but does not need to compensate for schema gaps, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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," and adds the fields, filtering, and ordering dimensions. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from search_projects or get_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?

The description says it can filter by tag and order by date, state, or name, which implies usage. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over search_projects or get_project.

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