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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the response is 'LARGE' and this should be a 'last resort'. This goes beyond the structured annotation by warning about payload size and cost. It could have mentioned response format, but given the annotation coverage this is solid.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence. 'FULL design dump — LARGE, last resort' immediately conveys the critical warning, and the preference for alternatives is stated compactly. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and one parameter, the description should explain what 'full design dump' actually returns. It does tell the agent it's large and a last resort, which is useful, but it does not enumerate the content or behavior. The guidance is adequate for a simple parameter but leaves the output open-ended.

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 0%, and the description says nothing about the required 'project_id' parameter. With a single undocumented parameter, the description should at least confirm that 'project_id' identifies the project to dump, but it does not. The meaning is inferable from the name, but the description adds no value.

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 'FULL design dump' clearly identifies the tool as returning a comprehensive design/context payload for a project, and it distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly recommending lighter-weight alternatives. Although it doesn't use the exact verb 'get', the resource and scope are unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('last resort') and provides concrete alternatives ('prefer get_project_meta + list_*/get_*/search'). This gives the agent clear decision guidance and differentiates from the sibling tools.

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