List a project's listings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: ordering by highest DR first, one row per directory, and the presence of status plus the live link once published, which tells the agent what state each listing carries.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the primary list behavior is front-loaded before the single-item alternative.

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 does carry return-shape burden and partially meets it by stating fields (status, live link), ordering (highest DR first), and granularity (one per directory). It omits pagination/cursor semantics and the effect of the status filter, which the schema covers but the prose does not.

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 83%, so the schema already documents limit, cursor, directory, listing_id, and project_id. The description only echoes listing_id ("by its id"), directory granularity, and status implicitly; it adds no new syntactic or behavioral detail on pagination or filtering. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (a project's listings) and its granularity (one per directory), plus the sort order and included fields, and notes a second mode (one listing in full by id). It's specific rather than tautological, but it's a noun phrase without a verb and doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like project_directories or find_directories.

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?

"Or one listing in full by its id" implies a second usage mode, and the parameters imply filtering by status/directory, but nothing states when to pick this tool over project_directories or find_directories, nor when to use the single-listing mode versus the list mode. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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