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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed world). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it is a 'rough upper bound' because 'branching rules may shorten the actual path', and the figure is 'derived from question types and AI follow-up depth'. That caveat meaningfully informs how much to trust the value.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what it returns and immediately followed by the caveat and the usage/routing hint. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description still clarifies the derived nature and limitation of the value. For a simple read-only single-param tool it is fully complete.

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?

Only one parameter (projectId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('How long ONE project takes a respondent to complete') and names the exact return fields (estimatedCompletionTimeSeconds/Minutes). Capitalizing 'ONE' clearly scopes it to a single project, and naming project_overview as carrying the same figure distinguishes it from siblings.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when the user asks how long a survey/project takes') and points to project_overview as containing the same figure. It stops short of saying the agent should prefer project_overview instead, so routing is implied rather than fully directive.

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