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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the consent requirement ('project consent or consent for its current home machine'), which an agent must satisfy before calling. It does not describe return shape or any freshness/live-state caveats.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the read scope comes first and the operational guidance (when to call, auth prerequisite) follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 one parameter, no output schema and safety already covered by annotations, the description supplies the missing pieces: what data is returned (services, resources, addresses, variable names), the usage window (before apply/diagnose) and the consent prerequisite. Nothing material is left for the agent to guess.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the pattern and the instruction to use the ID from nerdit_list_projects rather than a name or slug. The description's 'by immutable project ID' merely reinforces the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (live services, resources, addresses, variable names) scoped by an immutable project ID. It also implicitly separates itself from nerdit_list_projects (name/slug listing) and nerdit_apply_project / nerdit_diagnose_project by positioning the read as the precursor to those actions.

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?

'Read before applying or diagnosing' gives a clear context for invocation and effectively names the sibling actions it precedes. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming a literal alternative tool for other read needs, so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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