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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the description earns credit for adding a genuinely new behavioral fact: delivery.share_url is the respondent-facing link and is null for Discord-answered projects. The 'share it as given' instruction warns against mutating the URL, useful for an agent. No return-shape or pagination detail beyond that.

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, no filler. The core purpose leads, and the share_url caveat follows only because it prevents a concrete misuse.

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 read-only single-record fetch with no output schema, the description covers the purpose plus one non-obvious field semantic and its null condition. It stops short of describing response structure, but annotations and the complete param schema carry the rest.

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%, so both parameters (expand, project_id) are already documented in the schema, with expand's 'script' meaning fully spelled out. The description adds nothing about parameters, 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 and resource ('Get one project') and enumerates what comes back — delivery, rewards, settings. The singular 'one project' implicitly separates it from list_projects, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the schema notes project_id comes from list_projects or create_project, and the description's advice about share_url hints at the respondent-sharing workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement and no named alternative.

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