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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context: newest-first ordering and cursor pagination. The cursor schema description adds important behavior (opaque token, verbatim copy, rejection of offsets), which goes 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and ordering, then adds pagination. The schema parameter descriptions are detailed but each sentence earns its place, especially the cursor warning which prevents a common misuse.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema, the description plus annotations fully cover what an agent needs: what it returns, ordering, pagination mechanics, and safety. The cursor guidance is especially complete, even distinguishing from offset-paginated siblings.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying ordering and pagination behavior, and the cursor parameter description in the schema is unusually rich: it explains what the token is, how to use it, and contrasts with other tools. This pushes it above 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?

The description states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('the account's projects'), and an ordering ('newest first') with pagination. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like project_get (single project) and projects_list is the only list-projects tool, so no ambiguity.

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 implies when to use it: to list projects. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set includes project_get, project_create, project_update, project_delete, so the list purpose is clear. The cursor parameter description adds usage guidance by warning against treating it as an offset and referencing jobs_list as similarly keyset-paginated.

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