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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the detail that some fields are returned 'when available,' which is minor contextual value. It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or pagination.

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 two sentences: one front-loaded return-value summary and one usage instruction. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations covering safety, the description only needs to state purpose and relevant usage. It does so completely, including the key downstream call guidance for the projectId.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the projectId parameter and its origin. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by noting that the projectId is reusable for 'subsequent remix and export calls,' clarifying its downstream utility.

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 plus resource ('Return a project's ...') and enumerates the exact fields returned, so the agent can immediately distinguish this from list_projects or export_project. It clearly states this is a single-project inspection tool.

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 gives clear downstream guidance: 'Use the projectId for subsequent remix and export calls.' This tells the agent what to do with the result. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name list_projects as an alternative, but the context is sufficient.

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