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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context by naming the fields returned (budget, time tracked, billed/unbilled, dates, owners), though it says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume beyond what the schema implies.

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 tight sentences: identity and module first, filters second, return payload third. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 7-parameter, zero-required, paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers both the filtering surface and the return payload, which is what an agent needs to decide relevance. It could go further on pagination limits and on what happens when no filters are supplied.

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 86%, so the schema already documents term, status, deal_ids, customer_id and pagination. The description's 'filter by term, status, customer or deal' merely restates the schema at a coarser grain, and notably omits the customer_type pairing rule that the schema does cover.

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 pins it to the projects module, which distinguishes it from the deal/contact/invoice list siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with adjacent tools like teamleader_list_deals, but the resource is 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?

The description lists the available filter dimensions, which implies how to narrow results, but never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as teamleader_list_deals or teamleader_get_company, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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