list_associated_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns the same record shape as list_projects and filters to one opportunity, providing useful 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?

Three sentences delivering key information: purpose, record shape, and usage guidance. No redundant or extraneous content.

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?

No output schema is provided. The description references list_projects for the record shape but does not explain pagination behavior or what happens if opportunityId is omitted. Additional details on defaults and constraints would improve completeness.

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% (embed described). The description does not explain the purpose or behavior of page, perPage, or opportunityId beyond the tool's name. opportunityId is implied but not clarified as optional or required, and default pagination behavior is omitted.

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 tool lists projects associated with a given opportunity, specifies it returns the same record shape as list_projects, and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_party_projects by clarifying the direction of the relationship.

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 states when to use this tool (opportunity → projects discovery) and when not (use list_party_projects for party → projects), and explains that the inverse direction is directly available on each project's 'opportunity' field.

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