List projects

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's marginal value comes from the return contract: it enumerates the Project fields and shows how the returned id chains into six named downstream tools. It does not mention pagination or result limits, which is the only meaningful gap for a list endpoint.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then returns, then usage — a sensible ordering. Nearly every line earns its place, though 'Args: none.' is redundant filler given the empty schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return contract itself and does so by naming every returned field plus the id's downstream use. Combined with the explicit usage triggers, an agent has everything needed to select and call this tool correctly.

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 nothing to document beyond the explicit 'Args: none.' Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4; there is no ambiguity for an agent to resolve.

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 ('List the projects in YOUR Rivalize account') and then defines the domain term 'project' as a product plus its tracked competitors, which disambiguates it from the similarly named list_competitors sibling. An agent can distinguish this tool without opening either 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 explicit trigger phrasings ('what products/projects do I have?'), states the precedence rule ('first, whenever another tool needs a project_id'), and names the competing alternative ('For which competitors am I tracking? use list_competitors'). When-to-use, when-not, and alternatives are all present.

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