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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing further, such as behavior when the id does not exist. With annotations carrying the load, a 3 is the right minimum-viable score.

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 short sentence with the key fact and the sibling pointer front-loaded, and no filler. It is efficient, though the telegraphic phrasing reads more like a note than a specification.

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 getter with full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, the description covers what the agent needs in order to call it correctly. The main remaining gap is what happens on a missing id, which pushes it just below a 5.

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 project_id parameter is fully documented there, including the org_project_id note. The description only restates 'by id', adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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: retrieve a single project by id. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling list tool by saying 'One project', so an agent can distinguish it from workyard_list_projects without reading 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?

Names workyard_list_projects as the way to obtain ids, which routes the agent to the correct sibling when it lacks a project_id. It gives no explicit exclusion or prerequisite beyond that, so it falls short of a 5.

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