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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: zero cost ('No charge'), the long-poll semantics of waitSeconds returning early on change, and the business rule that 'unjudged never blocks approve'. It stops short of describing rate limits, pagination, or error behavior.

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?

Three tight clauses with no padding; the payload composition and the waitSeconds behavior each earn their space. Leading with 'No charge' is slightly odd ordering, but nothing is wasted.

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 usefully characterizes the returned rows, verdict enum values and balance, which carries much of the return-value burden. However, it omits what projectId identifies and gives no sense of when this tool should be chosen over list_projects or get_files, leaving gaps for a 2-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain waitSeconds well (0-25, early return on change, default implied) but leaves projectId entirely undefined, so half the parameters remain opaque.

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 concretely states what the call yields: one row per plan item with AI fit verdicts, approvals and balance, which is a specific resource shape rather than a restatement of the name. It never says outright that this fetches project status nor distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects or get_files, so an agent gets the payload but not the routing rationale.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and none of the sibling tools (approve, draft, get_files, list_projects) are referenced as alternatives. The only usage signal is implicit: 'No charge' suggests it is safe to poll, and the waitSeconds note implies polling usage.

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