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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read, so the description's main added value is the concrete endpoint (GET /projects) and the returned field set. It says nothing about pagination behavior, total counts, or result ordering, which is meaningful context given the page/per_page 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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and what it returns, with the API endpoint as a trailing reference. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 seven optional parameters and no output schema, the enumerated return fields partially compensate for the missing output contract, which is a real contribution. But pagination semantics and whether the response is a bare array or a paginated envelope remain unexplained, leaving a gap an agent would hit on the first call.

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 all seven parameters (q, page, per_page, title, project_nr, customer_id, show_archived) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about filtering semantics or how filters combine, so the 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 projects') and even enumerates the fields returned (title, project number, customer, sales volume), so the agent knows what it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the singular sibling craftboxx_get_project or from the other list_* tools, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says to prefer this over craftboxx_get_project for a single record, or over craftboxx_list_customers when the customer context is the goal. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List', leaving the agent to infer routing from tool names alone.

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