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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the baseline-vs-no-baseline behavior, authorization requirements, plan gating with the actual failure mode, currency scoping, and how utcOffsetMinutes shifts the "to date" calculation. This is exactly the operational context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then constraints in descending importance (baseline, role, plan). The acronym list is dense but every term earns its place since there is no output schema to document return fields.

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, describing the returned metrics is essential and it does so completely, including how to interpret SPI/CPI. Permissions, plan limits, baseline behavior, and timezone handling are all covered — 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the meaning of "to date" via PV but adds little syntax or behavior detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 (earned-value figures for a project) and immediately enumerates the returned metrics with acronym expansions, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_project_costs or get_progress_trend.

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 concrete usage context: requires Administrator or ProjectManager role, Pro plan only, and warns that a Free workspace returns a plan-limit message. However it never names alternatives (e.g. get_project_costs) or states when not to use this tool, so no explicit routing guidance.

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