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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them: it clarifies that exactly one project is returned and discloses the auth requirement (a Cotlet API key with access to this app), plus explains that the revised contract amount equals original plus approved change orders.

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?

Short and front-loaded, leading with the resource and its fields. The first sentence is a terse colon-list and the 'as the project shows it' phrasing is slightly loose, but no sentence is wasted.

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 describes what fields come back, how the revised amount is computed, the required ID source, and the auth need. For a one-parameter read tool this covers what an agent needs, though return-shape detail (types, nullability) remains unspecified.

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 already carries the description 'Project ID from list_projects.' The description restates the same provenance guidance and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (project) and enumerates what the returned project contains: customer, address, stage, original and revised contract amount, dates. Clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_projects, which returns many.

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 directs the agent to source the project_id from list_projects, establishing the prerequisite chain. It does not state when-not to use this tool or name a competing lookup path, but for a single-purpose read 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.