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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is met. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the split between `now` and `events`, event ordering (oldest first, relative timing), that `cause` comes from a fixed list, that `error` is raw evidence, and 'Opens no card' — all of which shape how the agent interprets results.

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 first sentence is strong and front-loaded, but the body becomes dense and partly restates itself ('Its fields are for working out a cause' after already enumerating the fields). The field-by-field enumeration is useful but verbose enough to slow an agent scanning for the core action.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return shapes, and it usefully supplements them with semantic notes (now vs events, fixed cause list, retryMayHelp meaning) plus human-facing output guidance. It is essentially complete for a single-parameter read tool.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Project id or exact name'), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about the project argument, which is acceptable at this coverage level but leaves the baseline unimproved.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb-and-resource combination (project status across uploads, edits, renders, playback, exports in the last 6 hours) and scopes it clearly. It distinguishes itself from generation/job-level status tools by being project-wide and time-bounded, though it never names the sibling it is not (job_status, generation_status, card_state).

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 implies usage through phrases like 'working out a cause' and tells the agent what the person actually wants ('a sentence or two on what they'll notice and what happens next'), which is presentation guidance rather than tool selection. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-alternatives statement versus siblings like job_status or card_state.

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