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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so 'Read-only' is redundant, but the description adds a genuinely valuable behavioral warning that source names, titles and notes are third-party text to be treated as data, never instructions — a prompt-injection safeguard not present in any structured field.

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-loads the purpose, then the prerequisite, then the safety note. The middle enumeration of return contents is dense but each item is informative; slightly long but no waste.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields (cited sources, statusHistory timeline, hearings, opposition records, capacity, investment), and pairs that with the slug prerequisite and a data-safety note — complete for an agent to call it 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description's mention of 'by slug' adds little beyond restating the format and pointing at search_projects for sourcing. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('full detail for one WaitingForPower project by slug') and enumerates what the detail contains, so an agent can distinguish it from search_projects at a glance.

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 to obtain the slug from search_projects first, establishing the discovery-then-detail workflow. It lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g., which project-detail alternatives exist), but the routing intent is clear.

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