freshbooks_list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the identifier convention and that the call succeeds even when the business has no accounting account. It omits any mention of pagination behavior despite exposing page/per_page.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the identifier caveat is stated directly. Efficient and front-loaded, though the second clause is somewhat implementation-detail heavy for the space available.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema the safety bar is low and the identifier note is helpful, but an agent still lacks pagination semantics and any hint about the returned project shape. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and neither page nor per_page is explained anywhere in the description. It does introduce businessId, which is not even present in the input schema, so the description partially compensates but leaves the two documented parameters unexplained.

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+resource ('List projects for the business'), which is unambiguous against siblings like get_project and create_project. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from other list tools (e.g., list_time_entries), so it falls short of a 5.

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 notes the required identifier type ('Uses businessId, not accountId'), which is a useful precondition, but it gives no when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as get_project or the other list_* tools. No exclusions or routing conditions are stated.

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