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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes that the result bundles status, services, and preview URLs, which is useful return-content context, but says nothing about freshness, errors when no sandbox is running, or shape of the response.

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?

It is only seven words with zero waste, but it is an under-specified fragment rather than a front-loaded sentence. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity, not from efficiency.

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 what comes back, and a three-noun list is thin for a tool that aggregates status, services, and preview URLs. It also does not address the optional project_id or behavior when no project context exists.

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 project_id including the 'or use session from use_project' fallback. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 phrase 'Sandbox status, services, and preview URLs' names the resource and the kinds of data returned, which is more informative than the title alone. But it is a noun fragment with no verb and no differentiation from siblings like get_health, get_services, get_preview, and get_project, several of which appear to overlap directly.

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?

No indication of when to call this versus get_health, get_services, or get_preview, nor any note about prerequisites such as needing an active project. The agent must infer the choice entirely from sibling names.

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