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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: `variables` reflect the live site while `draftVariables` carry staged editor changes, and `hasUnpublishedDraft` signals divergence — this is not derivable from annotations.

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 clauses, zero waste, front-loaded with the tool's purpose followed immediately by the semantics of the returned fields. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description usefully clarifies the live-vs-staged distinction, which the schema alone would not convey. Given annotations cover safety and the single param is documented, the definition is near-complete; only explicit usage routing is absent.

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?

Only one parameter (projectId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 ('Get') and resource ('the project's active theme') and even enumerates the theme's contents (colors, typography, spacing), which is more than the tautological title. It is distinguishable from siblings like update_theme or get_project, though it never explicitly contrasts with update_theme.

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: reading the current/live theme state. There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance and no mention of update_theme as the mutation alternative or of when to consult the draft fields.

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