List projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is read-only with no wallet or signing required, and mentions it's backed by a GET endpoint. While it doesn't disclose pagination or error handling, the behavioral traits are adequately communicated for a list operation.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value. It efficiently covers purpose, usage, transparency, and API backing without unnecessary words.

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 tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage guidance, and points to get_project for detailed evaluation. It lacks explicit return structure details, but the reference to get_project mitigates this gap.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add per-parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but it does give overall context for filtering use.

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 clearly states the tool lists fundraising projects on AgentFund, with a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_project by noting that list is for discovery and status, while get_project is for the full evaluate flow.

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 explicitly says to use this tool for discovering active campaigns or checking status, and advises using get_project for detailed evaluation. It provides clear when-to-use context and points to an alternative.

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