get_project_estimate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the return object (id, name, type) and mentioning the requirement for calling another tool. No contradictions; it supplements the annotations well.

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 concise with three short paragraphs: purpose, Args, Returns. No redundant information, and the structure is clear and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has few parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return fields and connects to another tool, fully covering what an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema only defines project_id as a string, but the description adds 'UUID of the project', providing type context beyond the schema. With schema description coverage at 0%, this extra detail is helpful for correct parameter usage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get the estimate configuration for a project.' It specifies the return value (active estimate system with ID) and links to a related tool (list_project_estimate_points), distinguishing it from siblings like create/update/delete estimate tools.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to retrieve estimate configuration, and the returned ID is required for list_project_estimate_points. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the read-only nature and sibling list imply it's not for modification, making it adequately clear.

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