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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the constraint that the tool requires the internal ID, which is useful. However, it does not provide additional behavioral details such as error handling, whether the project must be active, or whether it returns nested objects. For a read-only single-entity retrieval tool, this is adequate but not rich, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides the usage guidance. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the expected fields, and the prerequisite for using it. The annotations handle safety, and the schema handles the parameter. There is nothing missing that an agent would need to call it 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 already documents the single parameter (projectId) with a description, and coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra semantics about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema fully handles it, the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 defines the tool's purpose: retrieving a single standalone project by its internal ID, listing exactly what fields will be returned (name, description, statuses, labels). It also distinguishes from siblings like get_standalone_task and list_standalone_projects, making it easy for an agent to recognize what this tool does.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool and when not to: 'Use list_standalone_projects first if you only have the project's name or key, not its internal id.' This provides direct usage guidance and routes the agent to the appropriate alternative, which is exactly what is needed.

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