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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, which the description's 'Read' verb aligns with. The description adds value by enumerating the returned content (project intent, document IDs/revisions, linked epics), giving the agent a clear picture of what to expect without repeating annotation data.

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 with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative tool guidance is placed second. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return structure need not be explained. The description covers what data is included and routes to related tools for other concerns. It lacks explicit mention of error conditions or prerequisites, but these are minimal for a read-only single-resource getter.

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 0% and the description does not explicitly explain the project_id parameter beyond its existence. While the tool name and single parameter make its purpose inferable, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, which is required at this coverage level.

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?

The description clearly states the tool reads project intent, document IDs/revisions, and linked feature epics. It distinguishes itself from project_document_get (reading bodies) and ticket_get/ticket_list (execution work). This is a specific verb+resource+scope.

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?

It explicitly routes to project_document_get for document bodies and ticket_get/ticket_list for execution work, telling the agent what NOT to use this tool for. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with project_list or project_update, though the 'read' framing implies it's for a single project's details.

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