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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the exact set of coverage states returned and the caveat that results are 'never a score'. It stops short of describing pagination or lookup-failure behavior, but materially exceeds what the annotations convey.

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 core meaning is front-loaded, but the middle clause is a 15-item dimension dump and a 9-item state dump that reads as schema restated in prose. It is dense rather than wasteful, yet the enumerated lists do not all earn their space in a description.

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 takes on the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so via the state enumeration and the per-dimension framing. An agent knows the shape of the answer and the recommended timing; run-time errors and lookup-miss handling remain unaddressed.

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% for the single slug parameter, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about slug format or resolution, which is the baseline expectation at full coverage.

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 states a clear verb+resource: reporting what is and is not known about one project, broken down per dimension, with an explicit output vocabulary of coverage states. It is distinguishable from ingestion-oriented siblings like get_evidence or get_project_snapshot, though it never names a sibling directly to sharpen the contrast.

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?

'Read it before concluding anything from an absence' gives a concrete trigger condition for calling the tool and a rationale. What's missing is explicit routing against similar siblings (get_project_snapshot, get_evidence), so the agent must infer relative ordering rather than being told it.

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