Get project

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's safety burden is reduced. It adds useful return-field context, but it does not disclose behavior for unknown ids, response envelope, or administration scoping beyond what the schema already says.

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 concise sentence with the action and object front-loaded, followed by the key returned fields. There is no filler or redundant restatement of schema or annotation data.

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 read-by-id tool, the description covers the core operation and return fields, and the annotations cover safety. However, there is no output schema and no guidance on not-found/error behavior or multi-administration use, so the description is adequate but not fully 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 only 50%: administration_id is described in the schema, but project_id has no description. The tool description adds little beyond restating 'by id' and does not compensate by explaining the project_id format or when administration_id is needed.

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 names a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a clear resource ('a single project'), and an unambiguous selector ('by id'), which distinguishes it from list_projects and other get_* siblings. It also states the returned fields ('name, state and budget'), removing ambiguity about the operation's scope.

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 phrase 'Retrieve a single project by id' implies the appropriate use case: when the caller already knows a project id and wants one project. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list_projects or how administration_id should be chosen when multiple administrations exist.

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