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

Annotations establish the safe read-only profile, but with no output schema the description carries the return-value burden and does well, enumerating the fields returned and surfacing `nextTool` and the polling pattern. It adds real behavioral context (what comes back, how to proceed) rather than restating the safety hint, though it omits any latency or rate-limit expectations.

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-loaded with the core return description, then terse usage ('Poll this ...') and alternative ('call view_images'). The opening sentence is a dense field list but each item earns its place by describing the return shape; no filler sentences.

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 and a rich, composite return, the description compensates by enumerating the returned components and pointing to `nextTool` and the polling behavior. It's largely complete for correct invocation, though some fields (e.g., 'current step', 'needs') are named without detail.

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 coverage is 100% and the single project_id is fully described in the schema. The description adds no semantics about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is warranted for a tool with schema-documented input.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: it returns a project's state and enumerates the returned components (product, media, cast, moments, brief, actor, script, storyboard, current step, nextTool). It distinguishes itself from view_images by routing there for photos/portrait, but it does not differentiate from close siblings like project_card, show_project, or list_projects.

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 explicit usage context: 'Poll this while a storyboard or a subject image generates,' which tells the agent when to call it. It also names view_images as the alternative for accessing actual images. It stops short of stating when not to use it versus other project-reading siblings, so it's clear context without full exclusions.

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