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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope semantics beyond that: sub-projects are excluded from the result and the response includes aggregated stats (recording count, total duration) — useful behavioral context. It does not discuss pagination or limits on 'most recent recordings', which keeps it from a 5.

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 the verb, key, and returned fields, followed by routing guidance. The two example utterances are helpful but slightly bulk out an otherwise tight two-sentence definition.

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 need no prose explanation, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description covers what an agent needs: scope, exclusions, and the alternative tool for the excluded case.

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 projectId field already documents that it is 'as returned by list_projects.' The description only restates that the tool takes a projectId, adding no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so 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 and resource ('Returns one Kalima project by projectId') and enumerates the payload fields: name, description, recording count, total duration, last activity, recent recordings. It also distinguishes itself from list_projects by naming the sibling and the parentProjectId route to sub-projects.

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?

Provides concrete user-intent examples ('show me the Meridian project', 'wie viel haben wir für DKV aufgenommen') that map directly to this tool, plus an explicit exclusion and alternative: sub-projects and their recordings are not included, use list_projects via parentProjectId.

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