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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful topology the annotations cannot: one project groups bots and holds pipelines, deals, tasks and clients, telling the agent what downstream resources hang off each result. Return shape (fields, pagination) is not described, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition, then the grouping model, then the routing advice — good ordering. The closing list 'deals, stages, tasks' partly repeats the earlier 'pipelines, deals, tasks and clients', a small redundancy that keeps it out of the top band.

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 parameters, no output schema and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers what an agent needs: what a workspace is, what it contains, and that it is the entry point for CRM queries. The only residual ambiguity is the overlapping dosai_list_projects sibling.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the schema requires no explanation. Baseline 4 applies.

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 makes clear this returns the caller's CRM projects and defines the resource as a workspace that groups bots, pipelines, deals, tasks and clients — far beyond the bare title 'CRM projects'. The verb is implicit ('the owner's CRM projects'), and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling dosai_list_projects, so an agent cannot be fully sure which list to call.

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 for any CRM question: deals, stages, tasks' gives a clear entry-point rule for the CRM domain. However, it gives no exclusion or alternative route — notably it never explains when to use dosai_list_projects or dosai_get_project instead, which is the most likely confusion given the siblings.

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