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

Annotations carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the exact return shape, how projectId resolution works (URL ?projectId= vs consent page), and concrete secret-handling rules (0600 file, 0700 dir, never print projectApiKey).

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 core purpose and audience are front-loaded, and every sentence carries operational value (return fields, persistence path, secret handling, when-not-needed). It is dense and slightly run-on, but there is little fat to cut.

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 explicitly enumerates the returned fields ({projectId, projectName, projectApiKey, userId, backendUrl, ingressUrl}), the resolution logic for the project, and the security-sensitive persistence workflow. An agent has everything needed to call and handle the result 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (botId, projectApiKey) are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning about the parameters themselves, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (fetch the project key) and names the exact audience (local test runners: Playwright reporter, CLI, k6). The parenthetical 'Normal (non-bot) OAuth connections' differentiates it from the sibling get-bot-credentials without the reader opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (local runners needing the project key) and when-not-to-use ('Not needed with an API key (stdio already has it)'), and routes the persistence sub-case to save-workspace-creds. The contrast with get-bot-credentials is also implied by the non-bot scoping.

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