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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only one behavioral detail beyond that – that include pulls in the parent organization – and says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or response shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with zero filler. Every clause carries information an agent can use.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, a complete schema, and no output schema to explain, the description is sufficient to invoke it correctly. Slightly more context on the include semantics or failure modes would make it airtight.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the whitelist for include. The description largely restates that include loads the parent organization, adding little beyond the structured data.

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 (fetch) and resource (a single project) and scopes it with 'by its numeric id', which implicitly separates it from list-projects-tool. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the singular framing makes the distinction clear without opening a 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?

Usage is only implied: 'a single project' versus the list counterpart tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of alternatives such as list-projects-tool.

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