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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds modest value by mapping to the underlying API call GET /projects/{projectId} and sketching the response contents, but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for unknown ids, or rate limits.

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 compact sentences with zero filler; the core behavior leads and the API mapping trails as supporting detail. Nothing to trim.

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 single-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint annotated and no output schema, the description gives enough: it names the resource, the key, and the categories of returned data. Missing only failure modes and whether the response is a full object or partial, which are minor here.

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% and the single required parameter is already documented with its source (crowdin_list_projects). The description only restates 'by id', adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (Get) + resource (a single project's details) + scope qualifier ('by id'), with an itemized payload hint (settings, languages, counts). The word 'single' implicitly separates it from the sibling list tool crowdin_list_projects, so an agent can route correctly without opening 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 states what the tool does but never says when to choose it over crowdin_list_projects or any other sibling; no prerequisites, no exclusions. The only routing hint ('from crowdin_list_projects') lives in the schema's parameter description, not in the tool description itself.

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