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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: monetary amounts are bare numbers with no currency, requiring a follow-up call before presenting them. No auth or error behavior is described, but the data-semantics caveat is high value.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler: the returned content is front-loaded and the currency caveat follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 of describing what comes back and does so (budget, progress, schedule variance, linked sites), plus the currency caveat needed to interpret it. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

One parameter with 100% schema coverage — the schema fully documents the project id, including UUID format and pattern. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 plus the content it returns (budget, progress, schedule variance, linked sites), which separates it from the many get_project_* child getters. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated by routing language.

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 a concrete conditional workflow instruction: call get_organization_settings for currency_code before stating an amount. It does not cover when to prefer this over list_projects or the child getters, nor any prerequisite beyond the obvious id, so no exclusions are stated.

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