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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond this by specifying that the tool does not expose tokens, private source code, unrelated customer data, or executable installer arguments, and that auth is required. This supplements the annotation coverage.

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 sentence, front-loaded with 'AUTH REQUIRED; READ-ONLY,' and every phrase earns its place. It is concise without sacrificing key information.

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 a comprehensive schema (including oneOf selector) and an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose and safety exclusions. It does not repeat return-value details or selector rules, which are already in the schema. Minor room for improvement: it could explicitly mention that exactly one of projectId or subdomain is required, but that is covered structurally.

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%, so the schema fully documents projectId, subdomain, and organizationId, including mutual exclusivity. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not go beyond it.

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 ('Returns') and identifies the resource ('documented MCP handoff fields for one accessible project'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on public context retrieval and explicitly listing exclusions, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context (retrieving public context for a project) and notes auth requirements, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Sibling tools like project_select or project_get_mcp_manifest exist, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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