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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It adds the set of fields returned, which is useful context, but says nothing about behavior on an invalid/unknown project_id, authorization scope, or response shape beyond the field list.

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?

One front-loaded sentence carries the verb, scope, and returned fields, followed by a compact service/operation identifier. No filler, no restatement of the title beyond what is needed to establish scope.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description sensibly compensates by listing the returned project attributes, which is the key information an agent needs. It falls short only on error/not-found behavior and any permission considerations, which are minor for a single-parameter read.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents project_id and its provenance. The description adds no format, constraint, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 exactly what the projection contains (name, region, hardware size, cache policy, build timeout, autoscaling). The singular 'one' implicitly separates it from depot_list_projects, and the trailing 'ProjectService/GetProject' maps it to a concrete API operation.

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 implicitly conveyed: fetching a single project by id, with the schema noting the id comes 'from depot_list_projects.' The description itself never says when to reach for this tool versus depot_list_projects or depot_get_build, nor does it state any prerequisites or failure modes.

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