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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful scope signal that this is a single-project lookup and enumerates returned fields, but says nothing about behavior on a missing/ambiguous project name — relevant since the parameter accepts a name as well as an id.

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?

Three tight sentences with the usage trigger front-loaded, followed by return contents and the exclusion. No filler, nothing to cut.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values in depth, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still names the returned fields and the scope limit, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented in the schema as 'Project id or name'. The description adds only the notion that it refers to one project and offers no format, ambiguity, or resolution guidance beyond that, 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+resource ('get one localization project') and explicitly delimits what it is not ('Not for how complete its translations are'), which routes the agent away from the overview/statistics sibling. An agent can distinguish this from show_project_overview without opening either 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 a concrete triggering condition ('when someone asks about one localization project, such as which languages it has or its default locale') and an exclusion. It doesn't name the alternative tool to use for completeness questions, so it stops just short of a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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