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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that secret values are masked by the server and by scoping the list to assistant-callable tools during a chat, which goes beyond the structured hints.

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: the first front-loads the core purpose with examples, the second adds a necessary behavioral note. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple list operation with rich annotations, a single well-documented parameter, and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what is listed, when it applies, examples, and that secrets are masked. The return value is self-evident for a 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?

The schema fully documents the only parameter (project_id) with a clear description and format. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is 100%.

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 uses a specific verb 'list' and a specific resource 'tools the assistant itself can call during a chat', with concrete examples (booking, notifications, webhooks). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list projects, conversations, or leads.

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 clearly implies usage context: when you need to see what tools the assistant can call during a chat. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the tool's uniqueness among siblings makes the appropriate use context clear.

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