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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. Because there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields (budget, activity value, completion state, per-project rate number/description/product/hourly-or-daily rate) supplies context the agent could not otherwise obtain. It stops short of describing pagination flow or failure behavior, but the schema covers the paging parameters.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the resource and immediately followed by the returned fields. Minor deduction for internal jargon ('record PROJECT_GET') that consumes early attention without helping selection.

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, zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: the resource and the shape of the results. The remaining gap is routing guidance (when this beats list_activities/list_customers) and confirmation that filters compose, neither of which is stated.

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%, with limit/offset/status/company_no/project_no/customer_no all documented in the schema, so parameter semantics are fully carried there. The description only implicitly echoes a few of them ('customer', 'completion state') and adds no format or interaction detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 description names the resource (Collmex projects, PROJECT_GET record) and enumerates the payload contents — customer, budget, activity value, completion state, rates — which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like list_activities or list_customers. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, but the title ('List projects') and the field enumeration make the operation unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for an adjacent need (e.g. activities or customers). The filtering options (status, project_no, customer_no) exist in the schema but the description never suggests the common retrieval scenarios or that all filters are optional.

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