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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, yet the description adds substantial behavior: how estimates are summed from stored Duration values (7-hour standard day), how estimate_price is derived from hour_price, daily snapshot cadence, the null-totals edge case, and field-level authorization (prices and emails only with edit rights). That is meaningful context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its contents, and nearly every clause carries new information (duration semantics, price derivation, snapshot behavior, permissions). It is dense and heavily colon-chained rather than cleanly structured, which costs readability but not content economy.

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 no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly: the estimate_hours and worked_hours breakdowns, tasks_by_scrum_point scoping to non-bug tasks, estimate_price derivation, and the null/note case for pre-history dates. Permission-dependent fields are flagged, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly unstated.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description nonetheless adds real meaning, clarifying that as_of means totals as they stood at the end of that day, that totals are recorded once daily, that a too-early date yields null totals plus a note, and that totals_as_of reports which day answered. account_code and project_relative_id get no added semantics 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Extended project information by relative ID") and immediately enumerates what is returned: options, users with roles, task summary, estimate_hours, worked_hours and tasks_by_scrum_point. An agent can tell this is a single-project detail read rather than a list or tree call. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (GetProjectTreeTool, ListProjectsTool), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives a concrete use case for the optional as_of parameter ("to compare the range quoted on an offer date with the final cost") and a clear permission gate for prices and contact emails. It lacks explicit when-not/alternative guidance — nothing says when to use GetProjectTreeTool or ListProjectsTool instead.

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