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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by defining the returned project state, including that decisions are current only (newest not replaced by a later decision) and that tasks are abbreviated rows rather than full task records. It does not mention error behavior for missing projects, which keeps it below 5.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the core action before enumerating details. It is dense but every clause contributes to understanding the returned shape, though the long enumeration could be slightly easier to parse.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so comprehensively: people, computers with name/status, open invitations, open tasks with counts, and current decisions. Combined with annotations covering safety and the schema covering the only parameter, an agent has enough information to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 100%, and the schema already explains that project_id comes from list_projects. The description does not add further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema fully documents the single parameter.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair, "Returns one project," and then enumerates exactly what that project payload includes: people, computers, invitations, open tasks, and current decisions. It also distinguishes the task portion from list_tasks by noting that list_tasks pages and filters tasks while this tool returns short rows with counts.

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 makes clear this is the single-project detail tool and gives explicit guidance that list_tasks should be used for paged/filtered task listings. It does not explicitly state when to choose list_projects or what to do if the id is unknown, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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