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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them. It discloses the ownership/membership/org-admin visibility scope, the not_found behavior for out-of-scope ids, and the archived read-only state that causes every write to fail with PROJECT_ARCHIVED. It also explains the three settings flags (autoSchedule, parentDatesFromSubtasks, retainedLogic), which an agent would otherwise have to guess at.

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?

Purpose and the list_projects/get_plan routing are front-loaded, and every later sentence carries real information about return-field semantics. The final flags sentence chain is dense (autoSchedule, parentDatesFromSubtasks, retainedLogic) and reads like documentation prose, but given the absence of an output schema it is earned rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description has to explain the return shape itself, and it does: headline data only, plus the meaning of autoSchedule, parentDatesFromSubtasks, retainedLogic, and archivedAt. Combined with the visibility and archived-state warnings, an agent has enough to interpret the response and avoid a follow-up call or a rejected write.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'Project id from list_projects.' The description reinforces the id's origin and adds that out-of-scope ids yield not_found, but offers no format or validation detail beyond what the schema provides. That is the expected baseline for a fully documented single parameter.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Get full detail on one project ... by id') and previews the payload (team, milestones, task counts). It also names the sibling it is not: get_plan returns the full task tree, while this returns only headline data, so an agent can route between them without opening either 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?

It states the workflow position ('use this after list_projects to resolve a name → id'), the explicit alternative ('PREFER get_plan when you need the FULL task tree'), and the visibility rule with a concrete failure mode ('out-of-scope ids return not_found'). When to use, when not to use, and what happens on miss are all spelled out.

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