List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and the description adds real behavior beyond them: default exclusion of archived/completed rows, list ordering, currency interpretation of amounts (contract without tax, budgeted/committed/actual cost, invoiced/paid), and a 100-per-page cap. It doesn't discuss how large result sets behave beyond cursor paging, but the added context is substantial.

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?

It is dense but organized: returned fields, then default scope, then filters, then amount semantics, then pagination. Every sentence carries information, though the opening fragment is slightly awkward and the two search mentions are redundant.

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 supplies the shape of results (which project fields are returned), ordering, default filtering, and paging, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Only edge behavior such as empty-result or cursor expiry is left implicit.

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 coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining the include_completed/status interaction, the meaning of search matching, and the pagination contract (up to 100, pass next_cursor back as cursor). Only limit's default/max isn't restated, which the schema already covers.

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 states the resource (projects) and enumerates the returned fields — customer, stage, dates, contract amount, costs, percent complete — and immediately scopes it to non-archived projects. It is clearly a list operation distinct from get_project, though the leading sentence is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement.

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?

It gives concrete selection rules: completed projects are omitted unless include_completed is true or status requests them, and search targets name/number/customer. It doesn't name a sibling alternative (e.g. get_project for a single record), so it falls short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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