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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool returns only published projects and lists the content of the complete record (images, fields, techniques, entities, professionals). It does not mention error behavior or authorization, but for a simple read operation, this is adequate.

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 that immediately states the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 get-by-slug tool with no output schema, the description provides a helpful list of what the returned record includes, covering the main return content. It does not mention error cases or pagination, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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?

The schema has one required parameter (slug, string). The description repeats 'por su slug' but does not elaborate on the slug format, example values, or constraints beyond the schema. It adds the constraint that the project must be published, but given the schema description coverage is 0%, the description does not sufficiently compensate.

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 clearly states that the tool retrieves the complete record of a published project by its slug, listing included aspects (images, fields, techniques, entities, associated professionals). This distinct, specific verb+resource+scope clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like obtener_entidad or buscar_proyectos.

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 usage when you need the full record of a published project and already have its slug. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tools for searching, so the guidance remains implicit.

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