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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new scope information: the large nested default-settings tree is deliberately excluded and lives in another tool, which prevents a wrong-tool call. It stops short of describing the permission matrix shape or failure modes for a bad id.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the payload description, then id sourcing, then the exclusion. No filler, and the negative scoping is stated rather than left to inference.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% with a single documented projectId, so the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance for that id (project_list or riddle_get's team), which tells the agent how to obtain a valid value rather than just its type.

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?

Specific verb+resource (returns one project by id) with the returned fields enumerated (id, name, image, permission matrix). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling project_get_settings by stating what is NOT included.

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?

States where the required id comes from ('project_list or the "team" of riddle_get') and routes the agent to project_get_settings when the default Riddle settings tree is actually wanted. Both the when and the when-not are explicit, with named alternatives.

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