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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat the safety profile. It instead contributes what the response actually carries (edit/export/view-only preview links) and the conditional nature of the share link, which is real behavioral context the annotations don't cover.

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 action and resource, followed by one useful detail about return contents. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 what comes back (edit, export, view-only preview links; conditional share link). The main gap is failure behavior for missing or unauthorized projectId, which an agent would need to handle correctly.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only source of meaning. It implies the project must belong to the signed-in account, which adds scoping semantics, but it says nothing about the projectId format, length constraints, or what happens if the ID is unknown or not owned.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Fetch one wrap project") and adds scope ("on the signed-in account"), which rules out the list-style siblings. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but 'one' vs siblings like create_project_from_image is clear enough from the phrasing.

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 by "one project" plus the required projectId, suggesting this is the single-item lookup. There's no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement or reference to any sibling tool, so an agent must infer the routing.

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