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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the context that the summary is 'public' and 'one' (singular) but does not disclose error conditions, response format, or any other behaviors beyond what annotations imply.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence without redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action and scope.

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 simple two-parameter getter, the description is minimally viable, but it omits important context such as return value details, the need for exact slugs, and any relationship to sibling tools. Given no output schema, the description could be slightly richer.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only hints at 'for a writer' (writerSlug) but leaves projectSlug unexplained. It does not describe what constitutes a project summary or how to obtain valid slugs.

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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Get one public project summary') for a specific resource ('project summary') and specifies scope ('for a writer'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_writer_profile and list_project_assets by focusing on a single public project summary.

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 description implies usage: to retrieve a single project summary for a particular writer. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_projects or search, nor does it mention required prerequisites (e.g., knowing the exact slugs).

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