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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that reusing the same idempotency_key on retry creates exactly one project and by clarifying that the call does not run extraction or consume estimate credits.

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?

Four sentences are tightly structured and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence contributes distinct value: purpose, required/optional inputs, idempotency behavior, and side-effect scoping.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described. Annotations cover safety, and the description covers purpose, all four parameters, idempotency, and credit/extraction behavior. Minor gaps around auth or error behavior remain, but the definition is largely 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate and largely does: it identifies name and idempotency_key as required, address and metro_code as optional, and explains idempotency_key's retry semantics. It does not detail format constraints, but those are present in the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: creating a new construction estimate project in the Portravo account. It also distinguishes itself from the extraction-oriented sibling tools by explicitly saying it does not run extraction or consume estimate credits.

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 implied by the create action and the note that extraction is not included, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_projects, run_takeoff, or get_takeoff. The boundary around extraction is helpful but not a full when-to-use guide.

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