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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a plan-tier requirement and a note about evidence validity, which are behavioral constraints beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is concise, including the primary function, a requirement, and a relevant caution, without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-organized and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

The description covers the core functionality, requirements, and a critical caveat. It does not describe the output format, but an output schema exists, so that is not required. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the 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?

The only parameter is project_id, and while the schema provides type and constraints, the description does not explicitly describe it. However, the parameter's purpose is self-evident from the tool's context, so the lack of elaboration is acceptable.

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 clearly states the tool reads the project's obligation schedule, completion evidence, internal action history, and monthly reporting enrollment. It also specifies the plan requirement and a caveat about evidence, making the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools.

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?

The description provides a usage condition ('Requires Startup or higher') and a caution about manual evidence not being proof of automated provider execution. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context and sibling list make the appropriate use clear.

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