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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds behavior the annotations do not: results are scoped to the account, ordered most-recently-updated first, and jobs without a project are grouped by month (e.g. "March 2022"). It also names the underlying endpoint GET /molpro/projects, leaving only pagination behavior undefined.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the resource, ordering and grouping rule; the second routes to the follow-up tool. The core purpose is front-loaded, with no filler.

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?

For a read-only, two-parameter list tool with 100% schema coverage and existing annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, ordering, what a project is, the endpoint, and the next call. No output schema is needed, because the description already characterizes the shape of the results (named project groups).

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?

Both parameters (offset, number_of_projects) are fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, with ranges and paging advice, so the description need not repeat them. It adds nothing about paging or result limits beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema carries the burden.

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 definition names a specific verb and resource ('List the account's projects') and directly explains what a project is (a grouping of jobs, with month-based fallback groups). It also names the follow-up sibling click2mail_list_project_jobs, so an agent can distinguish this list tool from the jobs listing without opening either schema.

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?

'Use a project name with click2mail_list_project_jobs' explicitly states the follow-up step, giving clear context for why you would call this tool. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over sibling listers such as click2mail_list_jobs_by_app_signature, so it earns a 4 and not a 5.

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