list_associated_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the return shape matches list_projects, results are filtered to one opportunity, and the association direction is clarified. It does not discuss pagination behavior, but the schema covers page/perPage parameters.

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 three sentences and front-loads the core purpose before contextual details. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, return shape, and sibling/direction routing. It is slightly dense but not wasteful.

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?

For a read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the description provides the essential decision-making context: what it does, what shape results take, and when to prefer alternatives. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the reference to list_projects' record shape. Some parameter semantics are left to inference, but the core call parameters are evident from 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 only 25%, so the description must compensate for the 4 parameters. It only indirectly clarifies opportunityId via 'given opportunity' and does not explain page, perPage, or embed beyond what the schema already provides. This is insufficient compensation for the low schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List projects associated with a given opportunity.' It further distinguishes itself by stating it returns the same shape as list_projects but filtered to one opportunity, and clarifies the directionality versus list_party_projects and the project's own opportunity field.

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 guidance is explicit and actionable: the description states this tool is 'only needed for opportunity → projects discovery' and directs the agent to 'use list_party_projects for party → projects.' It also notes the inverse direction is available directly on each project's opportunity field, preventing unnecessary calls.

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