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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: it clarifies that results are limited to what the key's owner can access and that a project-scoped key returns only that project. This extra context about authorization and scoping is valuable.

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 concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second indicates where it fits in the workflow, and the third covers a subtle behavior. No wasted words or repetition.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description is complete. It names the output fields (status, channel), explains how to get project IDs, and covers the scoped-key edge case. Annotations supply safety and open-world hints, so the description covers all necessary guidance for an agent to select and invoke the 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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter detail to explain. The schema coverage is effectively 100%, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, which is appropriate. The description does not need to add anything about parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List every DOS AI project the key's owner can access.' It also states the returned fields (status and channel) and explicitly notes the starting-point role for obtaining project IDs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project or list_conversations.

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?

'Start here to get project ids' gives clear guidance on when to use this tool, and the scoped-key note adds important context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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