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

Annotations carry no safety hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses the non-local nature for web_app projects (token minting and reading ui-review.json), and clarifies that glm_peak_paused is an intentional cost gate, not a fault. This goes beyond the structured fields and is not contradicted by any annotation.

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 moderately long but each sentence adds unique value: purpose, return list, two clarifications, and a warning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and progressively adds nuance. A slight tightening of the field list would improve it, but it remains efficient.

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?

Covers all non-obvious behaviors: the meaning of zero open_tasks, the glm_peak_paused state, and the web_app ui_review side effect. Since an output schema exists, the return format need not be restated. The description fully equips an agent to call and interpret 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 coverage is 0% and the description never mentions project_id explicitly. It uses 'project' implicitly but gives no guidance on format, source, or how to obtain it. For a single required parameter, the description should at least acknowledge it; it does not, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('how a project is doing'), then enumerates the returned facets. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_projects (which lists projects) and list_roadmap (which inspects roadmap items), so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Gives a concrete routing instruction: 'Use list_roadmap to inspect those items' when queued_roadmap_items is non-zero. It also explains how to interpret glm_peak_paused (report as 'waiting for off-peak', not failure). It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' for the general case, 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.