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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /projects/{id}) and implies the embed avoids extra calls, but says nothing about behavior for a nonexistent id or any limit on expansion depth.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the core behavior and the optional expansion lead, and the endpoint reference trails as a compact implementation hint.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description says enough about scope and returned content (a project plus optional tags, people, company, tasks, calendar events). No output schema exists, but the description adequately signals the response shape for a simple single-record get.

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%, so the schema already documents both project_id and the includes enum with its full value list. The description mirrors the includable relations in prose but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('One project by id') and lists the optional embedded relations, which is enough to distinguish it from centralstationcrm_list_projects and centralstationcrm_search_projects that return sets rather than a single record. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 'by id' phrasing implies this tool applies when a project id is already known, and 'optionally with' hints that includes are for avoiding follow-up calls. However, it never states when not to use it, nor tells the agent to use search_projects/list_projects first when an id is unknown.

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