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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only a light hint that the response includes a description and build progress, which is modest value beyond the structured fields.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the key scope word ("One project") is front-loaded. It is under-specified rather than bloated, so it earns its length but could still say more usefully.

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?

With a full output schema, rich annotations, and fully documented enum parameters, the description needn't explain return values or safety. Still, for a lookup tool it omits the one thing structure cannot say: that the slug must come from list_projects and what distinguishes this from sibling getters like get_experience or get_post.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are enum-constrained with descriptions (lang with de/en default, slug "from list_projects"), so the schema carries all parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about slug selection or language behavior; 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?

"One project with its description and what has been built so far" signals a single-item retrieval and implicitly contrasts with list_projects, but it never uses a retrieval verb, never mentions the slug lookup, and the phrase "what has been built so far" is vague about what data actually comes back. An agent can guess the purpose but must open the schema to confirm it takes a slug.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling list_projects as the way to obtain a valid slug (that hint lives only in the schema's slug description). The agent is left to infer the list-then-get workflow on its own.

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