get_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Fetch') and sets expectations about the record contents. It does not discuss errors, auth, or pagination, but for a simple single-record retrieval these are not significant gaps.

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?

A single, focused sentence that states the action, target, identifier scheme, and expected contents with no redundant wording. All important information is front-loaded.

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 single-project fetch with fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete. It lists the main output areas and makes the input identifier clear. It could be slightly more explicit about when not to use it versus search_projects, but that is minor given the sibling names.

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 input schema already fully documents both parameters with descriptions and a default, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, though mentioning 'participating organisations' aligns with the include_participants parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource: one EU-funded project identified by grant agreement number. It also enumerates key content areas, making it distinct from search_projects, which implies finding projects, and list_erc_schemes.

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 says the tool fetches by grant agreement number, making it clear this is for retrieving a known project rather than searching. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent. A fully explicit routing statement would earn a 5.

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