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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is smaller. It still adds real value by disclosing a permission-dependent output ('budget itself only when the user may see it in docket'), which an agent can't infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its return fields, with the conditional visibility caveat placed last. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

The return field list compensates for the absence of an output schema, but nothing covers identifier format or behavior on an invalid/unknown project_id. For a simple one-param read tool this is adequate but not complete.

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 0% and the single parameter project_id is undocumented — the description doesn't say whether it is a numeric ID, slug, or key. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, so an agent must guess the identifier format.

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 resource and enumerates what is returned (customer, status, deadline, tickets, progress, budget usage), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous. It doesn't distinguish itself from search_projects or project_budgets, so a sibling comparison is missing.

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: 'Details of one project' suggests fetching a single known project, but there is no statement of when to choose this over search_projects (discovery) or project_budgets (budget data). No prerequisites or alternatives are named.

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