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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a safe read. Beyond that it discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: the returned fingerprint lets the caller verify it is inspecting the same project, and it surfaces setup hints/verification status rather than raw data. It does not discuss rate limits or pagination, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The imperative lead ('Call this FIRST') is front-loaded and the middle sentence efficiently packs the return payload into one list. The trailing fingerprint instruction is useful but slightly wordy relative to the rest, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obliged to enumerate return values, yet it does so on top of giving use-case context. Combined with the readOnlyHint annotation, an agent has everything it needs; the only minor redundancy is restating fields the output schema already defines.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies the operation is scoped implicitly to the authenticated project.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('get project status') and enumerates exactly what comes back: plan, reputation, key mode, key fingerprint, sending domains with verification status, webhook endpoints, and resource counts. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like volanea_list_resources or volanea_get_api_reference, which return different objects.

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 explicit sequencing ('Call this FIRST in any integration session') and an explicit purpose ('Use it to plan the integration before creating anything'), which routes the agent before it reaches for any create_* sibling. It also names a concrete follow-up action (compare apiKey.fingerprint against the app's configured key), so the when and the why are both stated.

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