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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The description adds that tier, goal link, and target date are optional, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose behaviors like whether creating a project with a duplicate name fails, whether goal_id must exist, or what the response contains. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 that front-loads the core action and lists the most important optional fields. It is concise and free of filler, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the core action from the optional fields.

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?

For a create tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't mention required fields (name is required but not highlighted), nor does it explain what happens after creation (e.g., response format, whether the project appears immediately). The annotations cover safety, but the description could do more to guide an agent on required vs optional inputs.

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 already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds a little by highlighting tier, goal link, and target date as notable fields, but it doesn't provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Create a new project') and lists the key configurable fields (tier, goal link, target date). It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_project and list_projects, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 for creating a project and mentions optional fields, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_goal or update_project. The context is clear enough for a create operation, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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