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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'free' (cost info) and 'case-insensitive' matching, which are not in the annotations. It also discloses the potential create side-effect. This adds value beyond the structured fields, though it doesn't cover error handling or return format details.

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 fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the usage convention and expected output. Every sentence 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?

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is sufficient. It mentions the returned project_id, the convention, and the idempotency/free nature. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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% for the single 'name' parameter, but the description enriches it with the matching rule: 'exact name (case-insensitive)'. This goes beyond the schema's '1-100 chars' description and helps the agent understand how the parameter is used.

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 verb (finds or creates) and resource (a project by name), and distinguishes itself from siblings like create_project and get_project by describing the find-or-create behavior. It also adds the case-insensitivity detail, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description explicitly instructs when to use this tool: 'Use this to follow the one-project-per-folder convention: resolve the folder's name, then pass the returned project_id to other tools.' This gives a concrete workflow and implies the alternative (using get_project when you already have an ID) without needing to state it.

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