list_card_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds scope details (invitation categories, paper/digital) and output fields. It does not contradict the annotation, and the extra context is useful but not extensive; there is no mention of pagination behavior or the meaning of the returned 'customizations' beyond the schema.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds a compact list of return fields. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 listing tool, the description covers the resource, scope, and returned fields, while the schema fully documents both optional parameters and defaults. It does not explicitly mention how to fetch a single project or search the catalog, but those are covered by sibling tools and are not necessary for calling this tool correctly.

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' and 'include_completed' have clear inline descriptions, including defaults. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate rather than higher.

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 names a specific verb and resource: list the user's card projects. It scopes the resource precisely with 'invitation / save-the-date / shower-invite' and 'paper or digital', which distinguishes it from catalog search and single-project fetch siblings. The listed return fields further clarify what this tool produces.

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 phrase 'your ... card projects' implies this is for listing the current user's own projects rather than searching the catalog or retrieving a single project, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it. The usage context is implied rather than stated, so it stays at the rubric's midpoint.

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