list_project_business_outcomes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by explaining receipt authentication semantics and the limitation that neither tier proves causality or grants authority. This is useful behavioral context beyond the structured flags. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action in the first sentence. The following two sentences add meaningful caveats about receipt authenticity and limitations. Some jargon like 'same_scope_project_event_bound' is dense, but there is no wasted prose.

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 readOnly/idempotent annotations and an output schema present, the description covers the core semantics and important caveats. However, it leaves 'tiers' and 'same_scope_project_event_bound' under-specified and provides no guidance on limit behavior. It is adequate for invocation but not fully self-contained.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate for both parameters. It only indirectly hints at project_id via 'one accessible project' and says nothing about the limit parameter. The agent can infer project_id's role, but limit semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Read the real-score receipt ledger for one accessible project.' This clearly conveys a read/list operation on a project-scoped receipt store. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling record_project_business_outcome, but the read-versus-record direction is unmistakable.

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 implies usage: call this to read project receipt-ledger entries. It also adds a meaningful caveat that the receipts do not prove causality or grant authority, which helps the agent avoid over-interpreting results. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related siblings or when not to call it.

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