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

Annotations supply readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the phrase 'published/preview URLs' — it omits whether both published and preview URLs are returned, if the URLs can expire, or what output shape the agent should expect.

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?

One very short sentence communicates the full purpose with no filler. It is appropriately sized for such a simple read-only getter.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter getter with read-only annotations, so the core invocation contract is complete: pass a projectId. The only meaningful omission is the return value shape, but the description's phrase 'URLs' gives enough orientation for an agent to understand what the result represents.

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%, but the single required parameter 'projectId' is self-descriptive and aligns with the description's phrase 'for a project.' The description does not add information about ID format or how the parameter relates to the output, though the param name carries most of the needed meaning.

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 concrete operation — verb 'get' and a specific resource 'published/preview URLs' scoped to a project, aligning with the tool name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling get_project, but the URL-specific focus makes the purpose reasonably clear.

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 says what to call but not when to call it. It does not explain how this differs from get_project or get_analytics, or suggest when an agent should choose this tool over those alternatives.

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