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

Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape, the None case, tenant scoping, and even the setter's destructive behavior. This goes beyond minimal disclosure and gives an agent everything needed to reason about side effects and safety.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The purpose is front-loaded, the warning about the setter is critical and concise, and the return/tentant details are compact. The multi-sentence structure is warranted by the volume of important context; nothing is redundant.

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 getter with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary behavior: what it returns, potential None, tenant scoping, and the critical relationship to the setter. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With a single required parameter (project_id) and 0% schema coverage, the description does not explain the parameter's format or origin. However, the name is self-explanatory and the tool is a getter; the description adds no literal parameter meaning, but the context of 'project' is inherent. A 3 is appropriate for not adding explicit value, though the parameter's purpose is obvious from the tool name.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Read a project's current product vision (what the product is for).' It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling setter by name, and the parenthetical clarifies the meaning of 'product vision.' No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Explicitly warns against calling set_product_vision without reading first, explaining the replace-vs-append behavior and the risk of data loss. Also states tenant scoping and 404 behavior. This is direct, actionable guidance for when to use the tool and what to expect.

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