List projects

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's value-add is its disclosure of the documented page size of 250 and, more importantly, the redaction behavior: contact/pay-budget/address fields are hidden and PII (emails, phones, NI numbers, postcodes) is redacted unless include_contact_details is set. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 dense sentences with the resource, fields, filters, and the redaction condition front-loaded; almost no filler. Phrasing is terse to the point of being slightly clipped, but every clause carries information.

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 notes the page size and pagination limits. It covers filters and the conditional-contact behavior, which is sufficient for an 8-parameter, zero-required listing tool, though pagination mechanics (max_pages/start_page) are left entirely to the schema.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds the API-level wire names (id, clientCode, categoryCode, lastModified) and maps project_code to 'id', which helps cross-reference, but its include_contact_details note largely restates the schema's own detailed description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Projects', GET /projects) and enumerates the fields returned (client, category, dates, charge budget, manager, cost centre, purchase order) plus the supported filters. It is unambiguous what the tool fetches. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, but those list entirely different resources, so confusion risk is low.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the listing call for projects and that filters narrow results. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance, nor any note on prerequisites. Adequate but leaves selection logic to inference.

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