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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add context — and it does, by enumerating the nested return contents (forms with their status, invoices with balances) and stating the credential requirement ('needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app'). It omits pagination or nesting-depth caveats, but the additions are meaningful.

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?

The description is front-loaded and readable, but the first two sentences restate the same payload twice — once as the header list and again as 'Returns one project with its client, status, tags and notes...' — which is redundant filler that could be collapsed.

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 the return, and it does so by describing the project plus its nested forms and invoices. Combined with the auth note, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though it could clarify ordering or completeness of the nested collections.

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 description coverage is 100% and the sole parameter (project_id) is already documented as 'Project ID from list_projects.' The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get project') and explicitly scopes it to a single project with its client, status, tags, notes, forms and invoices, which implicitly separates it from the list_projects sibling. It stops short of naming that alternative outright, so an agent must infer the singleton-vs-list distinction rather than being told it.

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 it to read a whole project in one call before you act on it' gives a clear context for when this tool is the right choice — a single-call read prior to a mutation. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives (e.g. versus list_projects), so guidance is strong but not complete.

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