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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds some behavior (returns exactly one best match, includes citation-backed signals), but omits how matching is decided, what happens on no-match, and whether query and projectSlug conflict.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core return shape comes first. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly the cause of the documentation gaps rather than a virtue.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. But a 6-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no guidance on query vs projectSlug precedence, focus enum effects, or sibling differentiation leaves the agent guessing on invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only obliquely gestures at three of them (focus via 'focus highlights', includeVisuals/maxVisualsPerResult via 'visual context', includeCaseSignals via 'citation-backed signals'), and says nothing about query, projectSlug, enum values, or which identifier takes precedence.

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?

It names a specific outcome (return one best-matched project deep-dive with highlights, visuals, and citations), which is more than a restated title. But it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_project_by_slug, search_project_notes, or get_project_artwork_gallery, so an agent can't tell when this specific 'follow-up' variant applies.

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 phrase 'for follow-up questions' implies a usage context, suggesting this is a second-turn refinement tool rather than a first lookup. However, no alternatives are named, no conditions or exclusions are given, and it never says what to do if no project matches.

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