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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add one real behavioral fact beyond that – the response includes the project's tasks – but says nothing about what happens when the id is unknown, whether access is permission-scoped, or how large the task payload can get.

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 resource and the returned scope front-loaded; there is no filler, hedging, or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

Annotations carry the safety profile, the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, and the description covers the one non-obvious aspect of the result (tasks are included). With no output schema, a brief note on the returned shape would be the only remaining gap for this low-complexity tool.

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 with 100% schema description coverage ('ID du projet'), so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that the id refers to a project; it adds no format, source, or validity guidance (e.g. where to obtain the id) 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Voir le détail d'un projet') plus a scope qualifier ('avec ses tâches'), which tells the agent this is a single-project read that also returns its tasks. It is distinguishable from write siblings like dandori_create_project or dandori_update_project, but it does not explicitly separate itself from other read siblings (e.g. dandori_get_list_items) that could plausibly return similar data.

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 by the verb 'Voir le détail' – an agent can infer this is the tool for inspecting one existing project. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over sibling getters, no prerequisite (e.g. needing a valid project id from a list call), and no exclusion of any case.

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