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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral context: the permission-scoped return ('For a rikma the user is not a member of, only the public face is returned (isMember:false)') and the cost/latency characterization ('it is cheap'). It does not describe pagination or output shape, but for a read tool with full annotation coverage this is strong added value.

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 core purpose, then usage guidance, then the membership caveat, then a docs link. The long enumeration of returned fields is somewhat dense but earns its place by summarizing a return payload that has no output schema. Minimal waste.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so by listing the returned entities (members, roles, missions, resources, products). It is nearly complete; only the shape/format of those returns and any pagination behavior are unspecified, which is minor for a single-parameter read tool.

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% and the single parameter (projectId) is documented in-schema as coming from findUserProjectsTool. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies when structured data does the heavy lifting.

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 the facts about one rikma (project)') and enumerates the exact facts returned, immediately distinguishing it from scanProjectDirectionsTool by contrasting 'returns facts' with the latter. An agent can select it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call this before planning or writing anything in a rikma') and names the alternative tool along with the reason to prefer this one ('it is cheap and returns facts, unlike scanProjectDirectionsTool'). Covers both the condition and the exclusion.

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