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; the description adds useful behavior: page size of 10, filterable by creation time, sortable dimensions, and the underlying GET /projects endpoint. It does not mention rate limits or how pagination terminates, but adds real context beyond annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and page size, then capability, then the alternative tool. No filler and nothing 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 no output schema, the returned-field list is valuable, and the creation-time filter plus sort dimensions round out the picture. Minor gap: nothing about total page counts or how next_page feedback works, though the schema's page description covers that.

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 coverage is 80%, so parameters are already well documented; the description's mention of sorting by name, creation, start or end date simply restates the order_by enum. It adds no syntax or format detail for created_after/created_before and says nothing about the meta flag, so it sits at the baseline.

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 enumerates the fields returned: name, status, start/end dates, due time. It also names the sibling it is not (suitedash_get_project) with the reason, so an agent can distinguish it without opening another 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?

Explicitly routes detail work to suitedash_get_project ("client, team and economics") and states the filtering/sorting capability of this tool. It gives clear context for use but no explicit when-not conditions beyond the sibling pointer.

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