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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the weak signal 'detailed', with no mention of what is returned or whether the lookup can fail for a missing/inaccessible app_id.

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, front-loaded with verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient but borders on under-specification since 'detailed information' carries no concrete content.

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 and no annotations gap to fill, the description should at least say what the 'detailed information' covers (fields, settings, metadata). As written, an agent knows how to call it but not what it will receive back.

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 coverage, and the schema already documents 'Project ID (from list_projects)'. The description repeats rather than extends that meaning, so 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 ('Get') and resource ('a project') plus the lookup key ('app_id'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similarly named sibling 'describe_project', nor does it clarify how this differs from 'list_projects' beyond being the detail view.

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: the schema note '(from list_projects)' hints at the retrieval workflow, but the description itself says nothing about when to call this vs. describe_project or list_projects. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative paths are named.

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