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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds the pagination contract ('Paged: use next_page') and the shape of each returned record. It stops short of noting rate limits, auth requirements, or Workyard default page size behavior, but that is a modest gap given annotation coverage.

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 sentences with zero filler; the returned fields and the filter capability are front-loaded, and the paging hint is placed last where it belongs.

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 lists the fields each project record contains and explains the paging continuation, which is enough to call the tool correctly. It omits any mention of include_computed_totals' effect on payload size, a minor completeness gap for a 5-parameter list tool.

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% and the schema itself documents the prefix/eq:/like: name matching, page/limit bounds, and the is_archived semantics. The description only restates the name and archived filters without adding syntax or edge-case meaning, so it sits at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 returned fields (id, name, identifier, customer, locations), which clearly separates it from workyard_get_project. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the 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?

Mentions optional filtering by name or archived state and points to next_page for paging, which is useful context. But it never states when to prefer this over workyard_get_project or workyard_list_geofence_projects, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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