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

Annotations cover only the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive); the description goes well beyond them by disclosing exclusions (never-published drafts, disabled areas), the internal _ids stripping, and the shape guarantee that both fields are always objects and an empty project yields {} rather than an empty list. This is exactly the non-obvious behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose, and every clause is substantive (scope, exclusions, shape guarantees, sibling pointer). It is dense and long-winded in places, with parenthetical enumerations that could be trimmed, but no sentence is filler.

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, the description carries the full burden of describing return values, and it does: field names, keying scheme, empty-case behavior, and what is deliberately omitted. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

There is a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents 'projectId'. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, only content of the response, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Returns the default Riddle settings every new Riddle of the project starts from') and immediately scopes it to PUBLISHED/ENABLED content. An agent can distinguish it from project_get and riddle_get without opening any schema.

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 tells the agent when to call it ('Read it to know what a project forces onto its Riddles before creating or editing one there') and names the cheaper alternative for a different need ('project_get is the cheap call for name, image and permissions'). It also states what it is not for (inspecting unpublished or disabled defaults).

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