list_card_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 value beyond that by enumerating the returned fields (UUID, name, customizations, suite, quantity), which is important since no output schema exists. It does not mention ordering or result caps beyond what the schema states.

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, zero filler. The scope-defining parenthetical is front-loaded and the return-value sentence follows immediately, so an agent gets purpose and payload in one pass.

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 read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. The return-field enumeration compensates for the absent output schema; only sibling routing is missing.

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% — both limit (default 30) and include_completed (default false, drafts only) are fully documented inline. The description adds no syntax or behavioral nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ("List") plus a clearly bounded resource ("card" projects) with a parenthetical narrowing scope to invitation / save-the-date / shower-invite, paper or digital. It implicitly separates itself from the singular get_card_project, but it never names siblings, so differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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 says what it returns but never states when to reach for this versus get_card_project, list_favorite_card_suites, or search_card_catalog. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing — the agent must infer the usage context.

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