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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false but destructiveHint=false, which could confuse an agent; the description resolves this by stating it changes nothing else — 'the project's status, items and waivers are untouched' — and adds the caller's authorization requirement ('Any caller who can read the project'). It also discloses the return contents (pass/fail, required gaps, enforcement mode, resolution) despite having no output schema.

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-loads the action and its key guarantee (records evidence, changes nothing else) in the first clause, then covers use case and return shape. Dense but every sentence carries information, with no filler.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields, and it covers the side-effect profile, the non-destructive guarantee, and the auth requirement. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: transition is documented inline with its default and enum meaning, while projectId is undocumented. The description's phrase 'completing or archiving a project' loosely evokes the transition enum but gives no added semantics beyond the schema baseline.

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 and resource ('Run a project's readiness check now and record the result as evidence (a check row)') and states the side effect precisely. It is clearly separable from the sibling get_readiness_status, which only reads status without recording a check row.

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 clear context for use: 'Use it to see what still blocks completing or archiving a project and to leave a dated record of that.' However it never names the obvious read-only alternative (get_readiness_status) or states when not to use this tool versus consulting existing results.

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