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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real domain semantics instead of repeating that — revised contract amount = original + approved change orders, cost split into budgeted/committed/actual, billing split into invoiced/paid/outstanding with retainage shown separately, and dollars as the unit. It stops short of describing what happens when the id doesn't exist or how large the payload is.

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-loaded with the resource, then the field inventory, then the derived-field semantics. The telegraphic field lists are dense but each clause maps to a real return-value distinction; only 'Returns one project' is redundant filler.

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 explaining return contents and does so well, including how computed amounts are derived. A brief note on missing/unauthorized id behavior would make it complete.

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's description already says 'project_id from list_projects,' so the sentence in the description adds nothing new. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 ('Returns one project') and enumerates exactly which fields come back (customer, address, stage, dates, contract amounts, costs, billing, retainage). This clearly separates it from list_projects, which is named as the source of the identifier.

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?

'Use project_id from list_projects' tells the agent how to obtain the required input and implicitly routes single-record lookups here rather than to the list tool. No explicit when-not-use or mention of error behavior for an unknown id, but the context is clear.

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