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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the returned record (positioning, description, tech stack, live URL, status), which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about behavior when the name is unknown, whether the lookup is exact-match/case-sensitive, or any auth/rate considerations.

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 waste. The resource and its returned contents are front-loaded, and the prerequisite guidance follows immediately.

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 single-record read with one parameter, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the resource, its return fields and how to obtain a valid input. Only the failure mode for an unknown project name is left unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already supplies example values for 'name', so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by requiring the 'exact' name and pointing to list_projects as the way to obtain a valid value, implying an exact-match lookup rather than fuzzy search.

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 (get) plus resource (one project) and enumerates exactly what the record contains: positioning, description, tech stack, live URL, status. This clearly distinguishes it from list_projects, which the description names as the sibling that returns the collection rather than a single record.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use list_projects first for the exact names.' This names the alternative tool and the condition under which it should be called before this one, leaving no inference needed about input acquisition.

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