List my projects

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds real behavior: sort order (most recent proposal first), returned fields per project, the meaning of counts, and the archived filter quirk. It doesn't state result-size limits or whether counts reflect the filtered set, which keeps it off 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?

Front-loaded with purpose then return shape, then pagination – good ordering with no filler. The second sentence is dense and slightly run-on (status list, fields, counts all in one), costing a little readability.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description documents the return shape (fields, ordering, counts), pagination contract, and the archived edge case. For a 3-param, fully-documented read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning above the schema by explaining cursor comes from next_cursor and null signals the last page, plus the special archived-status behavior. Query parameter is left to the schema, so it's not a full 5.

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 with explicit scope: projects 'the signed-in buyer posted'. That scoping cleanly separates it from sibling search_projects/get_project, which cover broader or single-project retrieval.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: 'Archived projects come back only with status archived' and 'Pass next_cursor back as cursor; it is null on the last page.' It lacks an explicit alternative pointer (e.g., use search_projects for other buyers), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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