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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the card is live and self-updating while a storyboard or video generates, and rendering depends on client capability with a URL-sharing fallback. No auth, rate-limit, or payload details, but the UI-lifecycle behavior is disclosed well.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the contents, then routing guidance. The middle enumeration is long but each item is informative. No wasted preamble or restated title.

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, but the description compensates by describing what the card displays, including the rendered video, so an agent knows what comes back. Combined with one simple required param and full read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly. The only unresolved ambiguity is how it relates to the sibling project_card.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents project_id. The description adds nothing about the id's format or source. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 ('Shows the user a live card of the project') and itemizes what the card contains: progress, portrait, photos, storyboard scenes, and the rendered video. It also draws a line against get_project. It stops short of differentiating from the sibling project_card, which sounds like it may do something very similar.

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 says when to use it ('whenever the user wants to see the project or the result') and names both the fallback tool and the condition that triggers it ('in clients that can't display it, share the URLs from get_project instead'). That is a complete when/when-not/alternative routing statement.

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