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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description's job is lighter. It adds the meaningful detail that the response is the project's 'full stage state' rather than a summary, which tells the agent what depth of data to expect. No auth or rate-limit notes, which is acceptable for a simple read.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the triggering user situation before the technical action. Minor redundancy between the enumerated examples ('current stage, what is finished, what comes next') and the later 'project's state', but nothing is wasted outright.

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 one-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage trigger, and parameter provenance adequately. It stops short of describing return structure, but with no output schema declared that omission is minor.

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% for the single project_id parameter, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by telling the agent where the id comes from (lab_list_projects), which the schema does not convey.

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 ('Get a single FilmLab project with its full stage state') and distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool by naming lab_list_projects as the source of the id. An agent can tell it apart from lab_list_projects or lab_get_sequence without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger ('when the person asks where a project stands... or wants the project's state before continuing') and points to lab_list_projects for obtaining the id. No when-not or exclusion guidance, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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