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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds mild context by labeling the project "private", implying limitted access, but it does not disclose other behavioral details such as authorization requirements or what happens when the project is not found. The description does not contradiction 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: the action, the scoped resource, and the primary return content are all present.

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?

For a simple, annotated, read-only get operation, the description is mostly adequate and the output schema presumably details return values. However, the 0% schema description coverage and the lack of any parameter explanation leaves a meaningful gap in what the agent needs to call the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It does not explain what landing_project_id represents, what role project_id plays, or why project_id is required yet defaults to null. An agent cannot confidently choose or format the right identifiers from the description alone.

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 uses a specific verb, "Retrieve", plus a clear resource, "one private landing-page project", and specifies the relevant payload aspects: "status and URLs". It distinguishes itself from the sibling listing tool by being explicitly singular.

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 implies when to use it — when you need a single landing project's status and URLs — but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like landing.list_projects or landing.get_analytics. There is no direct when/when-not guidance, only inferred context from the word "one".

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