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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the pricing model (free), that no passport is required, and that the paid sibling adds validation, a tickable task list, and a human-facing plan page. That is meaningful context the annotations do not carry, though it says nothing about rate limits or output size.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource name and the free/no-passport fact before the upsell. No filler, though the parenthetical enumeration of stages and deliverables makes it slightly heavy.

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 usefully characterizes the return payload (instructions, JSON Schema, worked example per stage). For a zero-required-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only pagination/size expectations are unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds behavior the schema cannot: omitting `stage` returns all six stages, while passing it returns just one. The 'accepted and ignored' nature of passport_token is already documented in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (the Project Blueprint method) and enumerates the six stages it returns, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It also names the paid sibling (buy project-blueprint) and clarifies that passing `stage` narrows the result, distinguishing it from the write-side blueprint_* siblings.

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?

'free, no passport needed' tells the agent this is the public entry point requiring no auth, and 'Buy project-blueprint to get every stage checked' names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with blueprint_put_stage/blueprint_delete_stage, but the read-vs-write split is clear.

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