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 safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context: it returns the same record shape as list_projects and is filtered to one opportunity. It also notes the inverse relationship. This goes beyond annotations but doesn't cover pagination or potential edge cases, which is acceptable given the read-only nature.

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 high information density. The core purpose is front-loaded, the alternative is mentioned, and there is no fluff. Every phrase 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's reference to 'same record shape as list_projects' is helpful but not a full specification. It also omits that opportunityId is effectively required for meaningful use (though not marked required), and doesn't mention pagination defaults or error behavior. For a read-only list tool with 4 params, more detail on required inputs and response shape would be expected.

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 only 25% (only embed has a description). The description mentions 'given an opportunity' but doesn't explicitly tie that to the opportunityId parameter, nor does it explain pagination (page, perPage) or their defaults. Since the schema leaves most parameters undocumented, the description should step in, and it largely doesn't.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List projects associated with a given opportunity') and clarifies that it returns the same record shape as list_projects but filtered, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_party_projects. This is precise and actionable.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool ('only needed for opportunity → projects discovery'), when not needed (inverse direction is available directly on the project's opportunity field), and names the alternative for party → projects (list_party_projects). This is exemplary routing guidance.

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