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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is transparent about what is returned (metadata fields, title, summary, markdown body) and implies a read-only fetch without side effects. It does not explicitly state read-only or address error cases (e.g., invalid slug), but for a simple getter, the description provides sufficient transparency about the operation's nature and output.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guideline is given immediately after. Every word earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick scanning by an agent.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (the full project contents) and how to obtain a valid slug (via list_projects). The sibling set is clear, and the description covers all essential information needed to call the tool correctly. No additional context is required.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage, so both parameters (slug and locale) are already well-documented. The description adds minimal new parameter meaning beyond the schema: it repeats the instruction to see list_projects for slug discovery (which the schema already includes) and doesn't elaborate on locale. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline is 3; the description provides little additional value on parameter semantics.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one of Sofia Ferro's projects in full' and enumerates the returned content (metadata, title, summary, markdown body). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_projects (which lists projects) and get_manifesto/get_resume (which fetch other resources). An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and why it differs.

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 instructs to 'Use list_projects first to discover valid slugs', providing a clear prerequisite and routing the agent to the correct sibling tool. This leaves no ambiguity about when to call this tool versus list_projects. It also implies this is the tool for fetching a single full project after listing, which is exactly the intended usage.

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