List projects

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the return envelope structure, 'next_page' continuation mechanism, default field behavior versus 'fields': ['all'], and unit conventions (amounts in cents, times in minutes). This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting any 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then logically expands to concept context, field selection, and return format. At about 150 words, it is slightly longer than ideal but every sentence adds useful information with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description fully covers the return format ({ total, count, page, pages, has_more, next_page, items[] }), pagination mechanics, and unit semantics. Combined with thorough parameter schema and safety annotations, an agent has all the information needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all six parameters, including pagination and field selection. The description largely repeats 'fields' behavior and 'next_page' guidance already present in the schema, so it adds minimal new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies due to high 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 clearly states 'List projects from easybill with optional filters and pagination.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools listing documents, customers, or time trackings. The mention of filters and pagination adds further precision.

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?

The description gives context on what projects are ('group documents and tracked time under a customer engagement') and suggests a concrete use case ('useful for budget-burn questions'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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