Get a project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, making it clear this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds the specific output fields, which is helpful context beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: first sentence states what it does, second specifies return fields.

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 good annotations, complete schema, and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It could optionally mention pagination or performance, but not necessary for such a straightforward read operation.

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 100%, so the description doesn't need to add much. It mentions the ref parameter (id or subdomain) but doesn't elaborate on the teamId parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents both parameters clearly.

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?

Description clearly states the tool fetches a single project by id or subdomain, and lists the returned fields (url, status, metadata). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects or check_subdomain.

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 when to use it (when you need a known project by id/subdomain) but doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like list_projects or check_subdomain. However, the sibling list provides context, and the tool's purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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