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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context: 'Slow, one-shot: infers config... discovers sources... gathers/ranks...' This explains the heavy, non-idempotent behavior. No contradiction with 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 fluff. The first sentence states the core action and behavior; the second provides usage guidance. Key information is front-loaded.

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?

The description explains the tool's process (slow, one-shot, inference, discovery, ranking) and when to call it. An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, it does not mention error conditions or prerequisites beyond user confirmation, which is a minor gap.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'inferred audience, description, and tone,' linking these to the config, but does not detail each parameter's purpose or format. This adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 ('Create') and resource ('content project'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_project and delete_project by emphasizing it's a one-shot operation that infers config and discovers sources.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Best called after the inferred audience, description, and tone have been confirmed with the user.' This tells the agent when to use it and implies not to use it prematurely. No alternatives are named, but the context is clear.

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