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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: app_health only appears 'once online', i.e. a conditionally populated field. It does not cover ordering, pagination, or result size.

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?

A single compact sentence with no redundant sentences, and the key scoping information ('the tenant's projects') is front-loaded. The mid-sentence 'and, once online,' interjection is slightly awkward but does not obscure meaning.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does name the primary fields (state, address, app_health) plus the conditional availability rule. For a zero-parameter, read-only tenant listing, that is close to sufficient; only pagination/ordering behavior is unstated.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. No parameter information is missing or misleading.

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 names the specific resource (the tenant's projects) and enumerates the fields returned (state, address, app_health), so an agent knows this is a bulk listing rather than a single-record fetch. It cross-references the get_project sibling, which helps distinguish it, though the phrasing is a noun fragment without an explicit verb.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this over get_project or get_project_detail; the only hint is 'see get_project' for fuller detail on app_health, which is a weak cross-reference rather than usage guidance. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are given.

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