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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds that the tool returns criteria with IDs, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not discuss error handling, authorization needs, or rate limits.

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 a single, compact sentence that immediately conveys the tool's core action and key return value. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description could afford to be brief. However, it omits guidance on the parameter (projectId) and does not mention any prerequisites or error conditions. For a simple get tool, it is mostly adequate but leaves a gap for parameter semantics.

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 0% description coverage for the sole parameter (projectId), and the description does not explain what the parameter represents or how to obtain it. The parameter name is partially self-explanatory, but the description should at least clarify its purpose, which it fails to do.

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 returns a single project and highlights the relevance criteria with IDs, which is specific and distinguishes it from list_projects and update_project. The verb 'Returns' is clear and the resource 'project' is unambiguous.

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 implicitly suggests a use case: obtaining criteria IDs for removal via betterpost_update_project. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like betterpost_list_projects or betterpost_get_content, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.

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