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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the exact contents returned (goal, brief, structured facts, reference links, decision log) and prescribing a recommended usage order (read before task work). This goes beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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, each earning its place: the first states precisely what the tool returns, and the second states when to use it. There is no redundant wording, filler, or vague abstraction.

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?

The description covers purpose, return contents, and usage timing, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves ambiguity around ID-based addressing, client scoping, and decision_limit semantics—an agent may not know how to parameterize the call in less common cases.

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 only 40%, yet the description provides no parameter guidance. It does not explain the distinction between client/client_id and project/project_id, how IDs may be used instead of names, or the meaning of decision_limit. The only hint of a parameter is the word 'project' in the resource name, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' with a clearly bounded resource ('shared context bundle for a project') and enumerates the exact contents: goal, brief, structured facts, reference links, and recent decision log. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_client_context and get_task, which target different resources.

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 second sentence gives an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Read this before working a task' and explains the rationale (alignment with project intent over task title). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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