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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the nextAction contract, the developing.finishWorkId field, and an explicit scope exclusion ('reports only Pizza Developer records, never repository, runtime, Git, deployment, or agent presence state'). It does not describe pagination, size limits, or error behavior, but with annotations covering safety this is strong.

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?

Purpose and the nextAction routing rule are front-loaded, and the scope disclaimer closes it out. The middle enumeration of possible nextAction values is a long run-on sentence, but each branch carries actionable information rather than filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description conveys the return contract in usable detail: nextAction, listed workflows with their open runs, batchSummary, and finishWorkId. For a read-only state tool with a single required parameter, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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% for the single projectId parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only implies 'one project' and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond it; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Get the planning state needed to resume work on one project') and immediately distinguishes itself from get_project by scoping to resumable planning state rather than project metadata. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: nextAction is start_workflow when workflows exist, resume_workflow to continue an open run that already covers the request, otherwise begin_work / finish_work / create_work / create_batch_plan / project_complete with the condition for each. This is a near-complete when-to-use-which-sibling map.

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