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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — "permitted" implies per-account authorization scoping and that unpermitted IDs will fail — but says nothing about error behavior or what a returned project 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero redundant content. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 single-parameter read with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is that an agent gets no sense of what a project object contains, though the definition's simplicity makes this a minor omission.

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 0% and the single parameter's format lives only in the JSON Schema pattern (^prj_...). The description compensates partially with "exact project ID", clarifying that lookup is an exact-match, not fuzzy or prefix, match.

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?

Specific verb ("Read") plus resource ("one permitted project") and the key qualifier that lookup is by exact ID. It implicitly contrasts with eurobase_list_projects ("one" vs. many) but never names the sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: "by its exact project ID" tells the agent it must already hold an ID, which suggests list_projects is the way to discover one, but no when/when-not or alternative is stated explicitly.

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