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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results are filtered to projects the caller is authorised to see — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens when more projects exist than the limit allows.

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 eight-word sentence with zero filler, and the scope constraint is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, which costs it a point on completeness rather than on structure.

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 read-only, closed-world list tool with one fully documented optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The only real omission is what result ordering and pagination look like, which an agent may need to page correctly past the limit.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the single 'limit' parameter is documented with default (20) and maximum (50) directly in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

'List authorised projects' pairs a specific verb with a specific resource, and the phrase 'in the workspace' plus 'authorised' adds scope that the name alone doesn't convey. It doesn't name or distinguish itself from any sibling, but the sibling set is entirely message/inbox oriented, so there is little realistic confusion.

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 call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions — calling it, versus reading projects from another tool, is left entirely to inference. Only the implicit 'list' semantics signal usage.

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