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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add what they don't say. It does: a project is returned together with its snapshot and version, and that version is the base_version for save_project — useful, non-obvious behavior. Pagination behavior is left to the cursor schema field.

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 terse sentences with the primary mode first and the version/base_version link second; every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 three-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains what accompanies a single project (snapshot + version) and its downstream use. The shape of the list response is only implied, which is the one remaining gap.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including "Omit to list projects" for id. The description restates the id/no-id rule but adds nothing about cursor or external_ref, 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?

The description states the resource (projects) and its two modes — fetch one by id, or list when no id is given — which an agent can act on immediately. It also names the related sibling save_project, though the verb is implicit rather than stated as "get/list".

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 id-versus-no-id branching tells the agent which mode to choose, and the note that the returned version is save_project's base_version gives a concrete cross-tool workflow cue. It stops short of stating when a different sibling (e.g. join_project or save_project itself) should be preferred.

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