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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only lookup by saying 'full indexed detail,' but it does not explicitly state that it is safe/non-destructive, nor does it mention error handling, authentication, or rate limits. It provides basic context about output content but lacks depth.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It includes specific output details without unnecessary fluff, earning a perfect score.

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 and no annotations, the description should provide a clear picture of what to expect. It lists some return values (canonical URL, links, proof count) but does not cover pagination, error behavior, or other potential fields. For a simple lookup tool, it is minimally complete but leaves gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'slug' refers to the project's slug, which is helpful, but it does not explain slug format, uniqueness, or how to obtain it. For a single parameter, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving full indexed detail for one project by slug. It specifies the resource (project), the method (by slug), and the content (canonical URL, links, proof count), distinguishing it from siblings like list_projects or get_proof.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you need detailed information for a single project identified by slug. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know to use this for single-project lookup rather than listing or other specific queries.

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