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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the composition of the result (options, users with roles, task summary), which matters because no output schema exists. It stops short of describing error behavior when the ID is invalid.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scoping key comes before the payload list. It is efficient, though the opening 'Extended project information' is slightly vague about what 'extended' means relative to the plain project 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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is fetched, by which key, and roughly what comes back. Missing only error semantics and how to discover the relative ID, which are minor against a fully documented schema and read-only annotations.

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%: both account_code (with examples 'bcp', 'jchsoft') and project_relative_id are documented in the schema itself. The description's 'by relative ID' adds no meaning beyond the schema's 'Relative ID of the project', 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 ('project information') scoped to a lookup 'by relative ID', and enumerates the payload: options, users with roles, task summary. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools like ListProjectsTool or GetProjectTreeTool, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

The phrase 'by relative ID' implicitly tells the agent this is a per-project fetch keyed on a relative identifier, which distinguishes it from list-style siblings. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named for cases where the agent lacks a relative ID or wants the full tree.

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