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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context the annotations cannot: the one-shot calling pattern and the relative cost vs whats_new. It also explains what depth actually changes (summaries vs verbatim). It stops short of any mention of size, latency, or output shape, so not a full 5.

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?

Three compact clauses: what it returns, when to call it (with the cheaper alternative front-loaded as a condition), and the depth option. No filler, and the critical call-once instruction appears before the depth detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the cost and idempotency guidance an agent needs to invoke it correctly; only the required project_id parameter's semantics are left uncovered.

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 0%, and parameters with enums is 0, so the description carries real weight here: it documents the two depth values (brief/full), the default of brief, and what each produces — adding meaning the schema's bare string type does not convey. However, project_id, a required parameter, is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 names a specific resource and enumerates exactly what it returns: instructions, tasks, map table of contents, memory, files, dialogs. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings, particularly whats_new, which it explicitly routes away to for repeat visits.

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?

It gives a precise when: call ONCE when you first take on a project, and an explicit when-not plus alternative: for a familiar project use whats_new because it is cheaper. Both the selection condition and the fallback tool are stated, not implied.

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