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

The annotations already establish a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed operation, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the return contents (project row plus access details) and the required permission, 'Needs project Read.'

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the permission requirement. Every phrase adds useful scope detail, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 explains what is returned: the project row and Access tab details. The single parameter is fully documented in the schema, and the annotations cover safety. It is complete for a read tool, though it could mention error behavior or empty results for full coverage.

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 parameter description already explains that the slug must match what list_projects returned and that it may be omitted only when the organization has one live project. The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 resource and scope: 'One project in full' including its row and Access tab details. It clearly contrasts with a list tool by returning one project, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_project_access or list_projects, so it falls 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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. 'One project in full' implies retrieving a single project's full details, but it does not say when this should be chosen over list_projects or get_project_access. 'Needs project Read' is an authorization note, not usage guidance.

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