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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: visibility depends on credential type — a sign-in connection sees all orgs the person belonged to at connect time, an API key sees only its own project. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or ordering, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the ordering rule, then the ambiguity rule, then the credential-scope caveat. No filler and no repetition of the title or annotations.

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 return shape need not be described, annotations cover the safety profile, and there are no parameters. The description fills the remaining gaps that matter for a discovery tool: call ordering, ambiguity handling, and credential-dependent visibility.

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 the schema imposes no interpretation burden and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies there is no filtering input, but adds nothing further because there is nothing to add.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus scope ('the projects you can read, each with the org it belongs to'), and explicitly contrasts itself with 'every other tool' that requires a project_id. An agent can distinguish it from list_dashboards and the get_* siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit ordering rule ('call this first') tied to the fact that other tools need project_id, plus a disambiguation rule ('when a question doesn't say which project and more than one could fit, ask'). Both when-to-use and how-to-resolve-ambiguity are spelled out.

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