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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the behavior is understood as a safe read. The description adds the scoped behavior of returning a single project, though it doesn't disclose error cases, missing ids, or permission behavior, which is acceptable for a simple lookup.

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, tight sentence that contains the verb, resource, and discriminator. No words are wasted and the key information appears immediately.

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 one-parameter, read-only operation with no output schema, the description is sufficient for a correct invocation. It does not describe response shape or not-found behavior, but that level of detail is not essential for an agent to call this 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry meaning for the lone projectId parameter. The phrase 'by id' tells the agent that projectId serves as the identifier, which adds real interpretability beyond the raw schema. It stops short of specifying format or source of the id, but for one simple parameter this is strong enough.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single project by id.' The 'by id' phrase clearly distinguishes this from list_projects, create_project, and update_project.

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 wording clearly implies the tool is for retrieving one specific known project using its id, which is enough to guide an agent's selection. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the sibling names and the qualifier are unambiguous.

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