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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the returned content — a project and its units — but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how the units are ordered, what happens for an invalid id, or what fields the unit list contains.

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?

Tohis is a single short sentence with no filler; the core meaning is front-loaded and every word contributes. It is appropriately concise for a simple detail tool.

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 simple by-id detail endpoint, the description gives the essential result shape: a developer project with its sale units. However, there is no output schema and no usage or behavioral context, so a bit more detail about the returned data would make the description fully self-sufficient.

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 schema fully documents the single id parameter as the project number from the projekty list, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The description adds useful context about the returned units, but that is not required for binding the id correctly.

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 states that the tool returns a developer project together with a list of units being sold, which clearly identifies the resource and the content. It lacks an explicit verb, but the noun-phrase description is unambiguous and distinguishes it from list-level tools like projekty and from other detail tools like detail_nabidky.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use detail_projektu versus alternatives such as projekty, detail_nabidky, or detail_aktuality. The tool name and content imply its purpose, but the description does not state selection criteria or exclusions.

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