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

Discloses return content (fit, services, indicative pricing, project_context_id, next_actions), routes small tasks to route=small_task, and explicitly bounds itself against being a detailed plan or contractual estimate. Annotations confirm read-only, consistent with an evaluation tool.

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 purpose, then trigger, then outputs and boundaries. Four sentences, each earning its place, though the boundary sentence could be trimmed slightly.

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?

No output schema, and the description covers key returned fields and the small-task branch. A bit more on the structure of 'fit' or next_actions would help, but the essential call-shaping info is present.

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%, so parameter meanings are already fully documented, including the omit-for-new-project rule. Description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 (evaluates/assesses fit) and resource (custom software project described by a customer) clearly. Distinguishes itself from siblings like plan-project-tool and submit-project-inquiry-tool by scope.

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 clear trigger ('Use it when a customer describes a new project or request') and an implicit branch for small tasks. Does not name explicit alternatives (e.g., when to use plan-project-tool instead), but the trigger is unambiguous.

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