Completed project portfolio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safe read-only nature is established. The description adds useful behavioral scope: it lists only completed projects, includes photos and locations, and clarifies that both residential and commercial/public-works portfolios are covered. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and scope, then provides focused filter guidance. The second sentence is somewhat long with many examples, but those examples are directly relevant to correct parameter usage. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Given the 4-parameter schema with 100% description coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers what gets listed, the category filtering behavior, and the return contents (photos and locations). Minor missing details like default category behavior and pagination are already handled by the schema's parameter descriptions.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds extra value by explaining the category parameter's meaningful values ('commercial' or 'public-works') and giving concrete examples of what counts as commercial work, which helps the agent choose correct category inputs.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List Kolmo's completed projects', and clearly distinguishes the scope (residential remodels plus commercial/public-works) from the many sibling tools. The title 'Completed project portfolio' reinforces the purpose and makes it easy for an agent to select this tool over get_project, list_services, or list_project_types.

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?

The description gives concrete guidance on how to filter: 'Filter by category or keyword' and explicitly instructs to pass category 'commercial' or 'public-works' for commercial portfolio results. It does not name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is clear enough for correct invocation.

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