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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower; the description contributes the underlying HTTP endpoint (GET /v1/projects) and notes the fields each project carries. It says nothing about default sort order, pagination limits, or total-count behaviour, which are the remaining behavioural unknowns for a cursor-paginated list.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no padding. The second sentence ("API: GET /v1/projects") is mostly implementation trivia for an MCP caller, so it does not fully earn its place, but the description is far from bloated.

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 8 optional parameters, no output schema and only a read-only annotation, the description should clarify default ordering and how the filter parameters interact; it only mentions included fields. Minimum viable for a simple list tool, but leaves real gaps.

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 88%, so all meaningful parameters (query, cursor, sort_by, page_size, client_ids, status_ids, updated_since) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics such as how filters combine or what the default sort is, 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+resource ("List projects") and adds that each project carries status, client and lead, which differentiates it from gorelo_list_project_tasks and gorelo_list_clients. It does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast, so it stops short of 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 statement of when to use this tool rather than a sibling (e.g. gorelo_list_project_tasks for tasks, gorelo_get_client for client detail), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the parameter list.

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