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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, yet the description adds a genuine behavioral fact they cannot convey: task lists are truncated on large projects and default to 60. It also describes output structure, which is valuable given no output schema. The trailing 'Read-only.' merely restates the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then the truncation caveat and parameter routing in a single sentence. Efficient and scannable. The closing 'Read-only.' is redundant against the readOnly annotation and earns little.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden and does so reasonably: it names the sections returned and the per-task fields shown. Truncation and the default limit are disclosed, which is the key failure mode for a large-project read. Minor gaps remain around exact formatting and how people/calendars/baselines are shaped.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds the causal context the schema lacks: truncation is why taskLimit/parentTask/search/onlyCritical exist, and it explains the meaning of the `rif` column as a cross-tool reference. This is framing beyond the per-parameter descriptions rather than restatement.

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 and resource ('Returns one project as readable text') and immediately enumerates the payload: header with dates and counts, tasks with duration/progress/slack/criticality, dependencies, people, calendars, baselines. That enumeration distinguishes it clearly from siblings like planitude_list_projects, planitude_critical_path, and planitude_portfolio_overview.

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?

Gives concrete guidance for the truncated case: use taskLimit to see more, parentTask to open one branch, search to filter, onlyCritical for critical tasks only. It also cross-references where the `rif` key matters ('the reference to use in other tools'). It stops short of naming explicit alternatives (e.g. when to prefer planitude_critical_path over onlyCritical), so no exclusion/alternative routing.

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