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

With readOnlyHint already declaring safety, the description adds substantial context: role-based visibility (a ProjectManager sees hours but not cost), unpriced-time reporting as unpricedMinutes, and a specific plan-limit failure mode for Free workspaces. These are behaviors an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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 is computed, then permissions and edge cases. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; the parenthetical rate formula is slightly heavy but earns its place by defining actual cost.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return content, and it does: budget vs actual vs planned cost, per-person hours, and unpricedMinutes. It does not fully describe the response structure, but it is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it and interpret the key fields.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail for projectId beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline at high coverage.

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 and defines the computation precisely: budget vs actual cost (logged time × hourly rates) and planned cost, with hours per person. That distinguishes it from siblings like get_project, get_earned_value and get_resource_usage without needing to open any schema.

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 clear preconditions for use: Administrator or ProjectManager role, Pro plan only, and notes what a Free workspace returns. It doesn't explicitly route the agent between this and cost-adjacent siblings (e.g., get_earned_value, get_resource_usage), but the access conditions are concrete and actionable.

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