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

Annotations already declare it as a safe read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description focuses on describing the rich return payload, which is valuable behavioral context. It also notes the error case { error } for unknown ids. However, since no output schema exists, the description of the return shape could be more structured, but it is thorough enough.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a detailed list of returned fields. The list is comprehensive but could be seen as slightly verbose, though each field earns its place given no output schema.

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?

Given no output schema, the description effectively enumerates the return values, which is important. It also covers error behavior. However, it could mention any pagination or rate limits, but for a simple get-by-id tool this is largely complete.

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 the schema already documents the 'id' parameter fully. The description adds minor clarification about accepting legacy project-key values, which is slightly beyond the schema, but mostly repeats.

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 (get) and resource (one project) and clearly distinguishes from sibling search_projects by emphasizing 'Full detail for one project' by id. The id semantics (Omeka o:id) are also clarified.

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?

Implies usage for retrieving a single project's detail, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs search_projects or fetch. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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