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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context the annotations cannot: results are scoped to the token's user and to the region chosen at login, plus the underlying GET /api/v3/projects endpoint.

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, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then filters, then the key downstream hint and endpoint. Every clause carries information; 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (id, name, code, address, time zone, plan, archive state) and states the access scope. Pagination behavior is only implied through the schema's cursor parameter rather than the description, which is the main remaining gap.

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 eight parameters are already documented in the schema including the enum, pagination cursor, and date bounds. The description's 'Filter by name, code, archive state or update time' only summarizes what the schema already states, adding no new syntax or semantics.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Projects the token's user can access'), defines the scope (token user, region chosen at login), enumerates the returned fields, and lists the filter dimensions. It is clearly distinguishable from the singular sibling fieldwire_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?

Gives clear context for use via the filter list and an explicit downstream instruction: 'Use the id in every other tool.' It does not state when to prefer this over fieldwire_get_project or other list tools, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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