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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description is free to add value elsewhere — and it does by disclosing the concrete fields returned, which matters because no output schema exists. Minor boilerplate ('Depot: ProjectService/GetProject') adds little beyond that.

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 that front-load the action and the payload before the trailing service identifier. Nothing is wasted except the 'Depot: ProjectService/GetProject' provenance string, which is marginal for an agent.

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-param read, annotations cover safety and the description compensates for the absent output schema by listing returned fields. It is essentially complete, with only error behavior (unknown id) left unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema itself explains it is a project id sourced from depot_list_projects. The description adds nothing 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one Depot project') and enumerates the fields returned (name, region, hardware size, cache policy, build timeout, autoscaling), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. The word 'one' implicitly separates it from the sibling depot_list_projects, though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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 only implied: fetching a single project by id is self-evident, and the schema's 'from depot_list_projects' hints at the discovery flow. There is no statement of when to prefer this over depot_list_projects or what happens for an unknown id.

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