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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description's 'Consulta' reinforces that this is a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by specifying that the record is public, includes a summarized timeline, and contains moderated ratings.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb and resource first, then covers the identifier method and the two key content aspects, making every phrase informative.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides what an agent needs: how to address the resource and what the response contains. The low complexity and strong annotations mean no critical guidance is missing.

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 single parameter id is already fully described in the schema as 'Slug ou UUID do empreendimento.' The description repeats that identifier format but adds no new constraints, examples, or behavioral details, so schema coverage is doing the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Consulta') and names the exact resource ('ficha pública de um empreendimento') plus the accepted identifiers (slug or UUID). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it bundles a summarized timeline and moderated ratings, which otherwise appear split across get_project_timeline and get_project_ratings.

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 intended use is clear: fetch the public record for a project by slug or UUID. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_project_timeline or get_project_ratings, so exclusion guidance is implied rather than directly stated.

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