hero_list_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 the returned field set, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about paging behavior, result volume, or ordering — and it doesn't need to repeat the read-only fact.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the identity of the tool and its returned fields front-loaded ahead of the filtering tip. Every clause earns its place.

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 returned fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. Minor gaps remain — paging/result-size behavior is only implied through the schema's offset parameter — but an agent has enough to invoke 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 earns a bump by giving concrete examples of what `search` matches (customer name, city, status) beyond the schema's generic 'case-insensitive text filter'. It adds nothing for `offset` or the pass-through `filters` object, which the schema already documents.

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 ('List projects') and enumerates the fields returned (project number, trade/measure, customer, site address, status), which lets an agent distinguish it from the single-record hero_get_project. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, so it falls short of a 5.

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 second sentence gives concrete guidance on using `search` to filter by customer name, city, status, which is useful, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over hero_get_project, hero_graphql, or hero_list_customers. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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