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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive semantics, so the description earns credit for added context: it discloses the required customer API access and enumerates what is omitted (notes, permissions, attachments, payroll fields). It stops short of describing response shape or error behavior, but adds real value beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then return scope and access requirements. No filler or repetition.

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 partly takes on return-value disclosure by stating selected operational fields are returned and listing omitted categories, and it flags the auth prerequisite. That is close to complete for a simple single-id read, though the exact field set remains unspecified.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. 'using its known id' confirms it identifies a specific project, but says nothing about type constraints or format beyond that, leaving some compensation gap.

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 ('Read one project') plus the lookup key, which clearly separates it from sibling gets for contact, opportunity, and schedule. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the resource distinction is unambiguous.

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?

'using its known id' implies the tool is for the case where the id is already in hand, which is a useful usage signal. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over search/list alternatives or what to do when the id is unknown.

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