billing_list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, permissions, or the effect of the organization_id default. A list operation is non-destructive, but more context on filtering and defaults would be expected.

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 sentence, very concise. However, it sacrifices behavioral detail for brevity; it could include more context without becoming wordy. Still, it is efficient and immediately understandable.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and 100% parameter documentation, the description should still provide context on scope (what 'account projects' are) and how this tool fits among siblings. It fails to explain the distinction from billing_get_project or billing_list_consumptions, leaving the agent potentially confused.

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 parameters are described in the schema with clear meaning (name filter, organization ID default). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states 'List account projects in an organization,' specifying the verb (list), resource (account projects), and scope (in an organization). It distinguishes from sibling billing tools like billing_get_project, but does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like billing_get_project (single project) or billing_list_consumptions. The description lacks any when-not or contextual usage hints.

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