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 real context beyond that — it discloses that nextAction names the next tool and, importantly, that it reports only Pizza Developer records and never repository, runtime, Git, deployment, or agent-presence state. That negative scope boundary is a genuinely useful behavioral disclosure, though return-format details are not covered.

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 core purpose, but the bulk is a single long run-on sentence enumerating nextAction branches. The information is relevant yet would be clearer as a list; the structure works against scanability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values — and it does explain nextAction semantics and the branch logic well. It leaves other returned state fields (workflow/run details beyond 'lists them with their open runs') only loosely described, so it is not fully complete.

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 documents it fully. The description adds only the notion of 'one project' and no syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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.' The scope (one project) and the resume-work purpose are clear. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling get_project/get_work, so differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Gives a clear context ('needed to resume work on one project') and unusually detailed routing guidance via nextAction branches (start_workflow, resume_workflow, begin_work, finish_work, create_work, create_batch_plan, project_complete). However, it frames these as next calls to make, not as explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives for get_project_state itself.

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