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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral scope – the 14-day completion window and inclusion of auto-mode/relay state – but says nothing about pagination, staleness, or failure when the project is unknown.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the content enumeration. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 return-value burden and largely discharges it by listing what the snapshot contains. It falls just short on failure modes and whether the snapshot is live or cached.

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 100% and the single parameter's description already explains that it accepts a UUID or exact name and how to discover it via list_projects. The tool description adds no parameter detail beyond that, 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+resource ('get project status') and enumerates the exact payload: goals, in-flight milestones, 14-day completions, auto mode, relay status. The 'One project's' phrasing scopes it against the list-style siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: reach for this when you need a single project's snapshot. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to nearby alternatives like get_summary, get_updates, or the sibling relay_status that this description partially overlaps.

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