Get a project and its map link

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the exact return shape and the non-obvious edge case that ui_url is null while a new project's map is still being created.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-sentence summary of what is returned, then structured detail on fields and the ui_url pattern. Slightly dense, and the field list partly restates what the output schema already exposes, but no sentence is wasted.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not spell out return values, yet the added field list, ui_url URL pattern, and null-map edge case make it self-sufficient. Only the lack of sibling differentiation (list_projects) keeps it from being 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 100% and there is a single required project_id documented in the schema, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description does not add syntax, format, or constraints for project_id, so the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get one ANUGA project') and enumerates exactly which fields belong to the project record versus what does not (scenarios). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_projects and get_scenario.

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?

It explicitly excludes a scope ('Scenarios are NOT listed here — use get_scenario with a scenario id'), which is a genuine when-not plus named alternative. It does not, however, contrast against list_projects or state when fetching a single project is preferable, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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