angi_list_my_projects

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that records are passed through exactly as Angi sends them, that recordFieldsVerified is false, and that field names should be read from data rather than assumed. This is valuable behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a necessary caveat about data trustworthiness. No filler or redundant restatement of schema details.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only list tool, the description covers the resource, scope, and the most important uncertainty (unverified field names). It is slightly less complete because no concrete response shape is hinted at, though the caveat intentionally tells agents not to assume field names.

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 only parameter, status, is already fully documented in the input schema with its enum values and default. The description's mention of open and closed aligns with the parameter but adds little semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 the signed-in user's Angi projects, including service requests and bookings, open and closed. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like angi_list_my_reviews and angi_search_pros.

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 clear context: use this for the signed-in user's own projects, not for general searching or reviews. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous enough for correct selection.

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