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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes further with operational traits: it is free, fetches nothing (no upstream crawl triggered), unknown or hidden projects return 404, and the webhook signing secret is withheld. These are exactly the behaviors an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 core purpose, then routed alternatives, then behavioral caveats, then the withheld-secret note. Dense but every clause carries distinct information and none is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (config, schedule, retention, coverage, last run) and disclosing the one field withheld. Error behavior (404) is also covered, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining that project_id comes from list_projects or create_project. The description adds no format, syntax, or lookup guidance 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 ('Read one project in full') plus the exact scope of what is returned: settings, schedule, retention, coverage, last run. It also names the siblings it differs from (list_projects, get_changes, list_pages), so an agent can disambiguate without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: read it before update_project to see the values being changed. Also names the lighter alternative (list_projects) for finding projects and points to list_pages/get_changes for run findings, covering both the positive and negative cases.

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