list_associated_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating the return shape matches list_projects and that it's filtered to one opportunity, providing behavioral context beyond 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 sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states the main purpose, second sentence adds usage guidance. Front-loaded effectively.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by referencing list_projects' record shape (implying return structure) and clarifying the one-directional need. Adequate for a read-only filtered list tool.

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% (only embed has a description). The description does not elaborate on parameters' meaning or usage beyond what the schema provides, failing to compensate for the low 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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'projects', and the context 'associated with a given opportunity'. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it returns the same shape as list_projects but filtered to one opportunity.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use this tool (only for opportunity → projects discovery) and when not to (since inverse direction is available on project's opportunity field). Also directs to list_party_projects for party → projects.

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