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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable transparency about what is NOT returned (nested configuration tree) and why, plus the fact that it includes the permission matrix. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose and return fields, the second gives ID sourcing, and the third clarifies exclusions and refers to the alternative. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool, the description covers everything relevant: what is returned, how to get the ID, what is intentionally excluded, and the alternative tool. Without an output schema, it sufficiently explains the response content and limitations, making it fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100% schema coverage and a single well-described parameter, the schema already covers the basic meaning. The description adds extra context on provenance—explaining that the projectId can come from the project list or the 'team' property of riddle_get. This enriches the parameter's semantics beyond 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 clearly states the tool returns a single project by ID, listing the specific fields (id, name, image, permission matrix). It distinguishes itself from project_get_settings by explicitly noting that default Riddle settings are excluded and pointing to that sibling tool. The action and resource are unequivocally defined.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives: it notes that the project's default Riddle settings should be fetched via project_get_settings. It also explains how to obtain the projectId from either the project list or the 'team' property of riddle_get, giving clear context for invocation.

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