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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), so the description adds genuine new context instead: amounts are bare numbers with no currency embedded. That unit caveat is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot express.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the return-content summary front-loaded and the currency caveat appended where it is needed. 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 sensibly enumerates the fields returned and flags the currency precondition. Minor gaps remain (e.g., what 'linked sites' resolves to, whether the lookup fails for unknown IDs), but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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?

Single required 'id' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries parameter meaning and the description adds nothing about the parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 ('Get detailed project information') and enumerates the returned facets (budget, progress, schedule variance, linked sites), which clearly separates it from the bulk/list siblings such as list_projects. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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 prerequisite chain: 'call get_organization_settings for currency_code before stating one,' which tells the agent when a second tool is required. It does not spell out when to prefer this over list_projects, so it is strong but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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