list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds value beyond that by enumerating the returned fields (name, date, booked flag, workspace_id). It omits pagination/sorting behavior, which matters given the 'page' parameter, keeping it below a 5.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler; the identity of the tool ('List your projects') is front-loaded, followed by terminology, return shape, and role. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and the cross-tool purpose of workspace_id, making it largely self-sufficient for a simple, unauthenticated-safe list tool. The only gap is pagination behavior implied by the 'page' parameter.

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 both parameters ('page' and 'origin') are already fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description's mention of workspace_id pertains to the response, not to an input parameter, so it adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 and resource ('List your projects') and immediately clarifies the vendor's own terminology ('HoneyBook calls them events'), removing ambiguity for an agent trained on the generic term. It also names the returned fields and frames itself as the 'portal's project switcher', which separates it from the singular get_project sibling.

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 for when to reach for it: to obtain the workspace_id that 'every other workspace tool takes', and to act as a project switcher. It does not, however, name any alternative (e.g. get_project for a single item) or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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