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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds useful non-obvious behavior: it creates an empty project, triggers an address lookup for sun/surroundings, returns an id and upload link, and costs no points.

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 are front-loaded with the action, followed by return and cost details without repetition. There is no filler and every sentence adds useful information.

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 usefully explains the return values: the project id and the floor-plan upload link. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, it provides enough context to call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so title, address, language, and client_name are already well documented in the schema. The description adds that client and address are optional and that address drives a sun/surroundings lookup, but it omits title and language semantics, so it remains baseline-plus rather than comprehensive.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new, empty project in the connected account.' It adds scope and optional inputs, and the 'new/empty' wording distinguishes it from get/list/project-management siblings.

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 gives clear context for creation: a new empty project, optionally with client and site address. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_projects or example_project, nor state when not to use it.

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