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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by naming the REST endpoint GET /projects/{projectId} and the detail categories included, but it does not cover error behavior or response format, which are minor gaps given the read-only profile.

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 description is a single focused sentence with a parenthetical listing the key detail types, followed by the exact API route. Every element earns its place and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description conveys enough for correct selection and invocation. It names the resource, inputs, included details, and endpoint; a full output schema is absent, but the description gives a reasonable sense of what the response contains.

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%: projectId is fully described with type, range, requiredness, and provenance ('from crowdin_list_projects'). The description's 'by id' adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single project's details by id', and explicitly enumerates included content (settings, languages, counts). This clearly distinguishes the single-project tool from the sibling crowdin_list_projects without needing to inspect the 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?

The description establishes clear context: use this when you already have a projectId and need one project's details rather than a collection. The schema's parameter note 'from crowdin_list_projects' reinforces the workflow, though the description itself does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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