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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this returns the complete record rather than a summary, which is useful, but says nothing about behavior for an unknown slug (empty vs error) or any result limits.

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?

Two sentences: the payload contents first, then the input guidance. The field enumeration is dense but front-loaded and no sentence is pure filler; only the long comma-chained list is slightly sprawling.

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 carries the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly (unit types, prices, status, handover, developer, distances, view-bearing window directions, page path). Missing only failure/empty-result behavior for an unknown slug.

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 schema already says 'Slug or name.', so the description is largely restating it. It does add provenance for the slug (from search results), which is a small value-add but not enough to exceed the 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+resource ('Everything the site knows about one project') and immediately enumerates the scope of the payload. It is clearly a single-record detail fetch, distinct from the sibling search_projects which is implied as the source of the slug.

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?

'Pass the slug from search results or the project's name' tells the agent where the identifier comes from, implicitly positioning this as a follow-up to a search. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or naming search_projects directly, so it is clear context without full routing.

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