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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds the substantive behavioral detail that the payload includes Public Delivery Page configuration and archived state, which the agent cannot infer from the schema. It omits auth/rate-limit or error behavior, but for a read-only single-fetch that is a minor omission.

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?

Front-loads the return content and puts routing second, with essentially no filler. The parenthetical field enumerations are slightly dense but each item maps to real returned data, so little is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so concretely while also pointing to the follow-up tool, sibling list tools, and the related resource URI. Nothing needed to call this 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?

Only one parameter (id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntactic or format guidance about the id beyond what the schema provides, making this the baseline 3 case.

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 project's own details') and then enumerates exactly which fields are returned (name, description, links, tags, deliveryPageSettings, archived state). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like get_project_state, list_projects, and update_project.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: get_project_state for next steps, list_batches/search_works/list_ideas/list_deliveries for records, and the pizzadeveloper://projects/{projectId}/instructions/{documentId} resource template for instruction documents. This is a rare case of naming both the alternatives and the condition that selects them.

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