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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing what the response contains and the underlying route (GET /api/v4/projects/{project_id}). It stops short of noting error behavior for a nonexistent id or permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the purpose and field list are front-loaded, and the API route is relegated to a trailing clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one fully documented parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of return-value disclosure and does so by enumerating the fields. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single project_id parameter is already documented as coming from airbrake_list_projects, so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. This is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get one Airbrake project') and immediately enumerates the returned fields (name, last deploy id/time, notice/deploy/rejection/error-group counts), which visibly separates it from siblings like airbrake_get_project_stats and airbrake_list_projects. An agent can select it without opening a 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?

Usage is implied by 'Get one Airbrake project' versus the plural airbrake_list_projects, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and nothing explains how to choose it over the similarly named airbrake_get_project_stats. No alternative is named.

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