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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. The name and phrasing make it clear this is a read operation, and it discloses the shape of the returned data (per-project search parameters), but it says nothing about whether project_id is a filter, whether results are paginated, or permission requirements.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the enumerated return payload spelled out. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool with only one optional parameter.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return values need not be explained in the description, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The remaining ambiguity—how this tool relates to get_user_projects—is a routing gap rather than a completeness gap.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (project_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no meaning about how project_id filters the result set, so baseline 3 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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Получить список проектов пользователя') and details the payload (keyword position-check search parameters: engine, language, region, device). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the close sibling get_user_projects, leaving the agent to infer why two project-listing tools exist.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is clearly for fetching projects enriched with keyword check settings, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over get_user_projects or get_user_project, 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.