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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the shape of the returned bundle (goal, brief, facts, links, decision log), which matters given there is no output schema. It omits auth/permission needs and any pagination or size limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation, then the payload inventory, then the usage trigger — a sensible order with no redundant sentences. The trailing API reference URL is the only marginally expendable content.

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 enumerates the return contents, and all five parameters are optional so invocation is low-risk. The remaining gap is the undocumented id-vs-name parameter pairing and the fuzzy-resolution behavior, which the schema only partly hints at.

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 only 40% (client and project are described; client_id, project_id, and decision_limit are not), so the description is expected to compensate and does not. It never mentions the client/project vs. *_id duality or what decision_limit controls, leaving three of five parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('shared context bundle for a project') and enumerates exactly what the bundle contains: goal, brief, facts, links, decision log. An agent can distinguish this from get_client_context or list_context_sources purely from the description.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Read this before working a task so your output stays aligned with the project's intent, not just the task title.' That is a clear usage trigger, but no sibling alternative or exclusion is named (e.g., when to prefer get_task or get_client_context instead).

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