rh11_projects_get_projection

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the meaning of third_place_share_basis, the interpretation of low_confidence, and the nature of different statuses ('temporary' vs 'not'), far exceeding what the annotation provides.

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 dense but every sentence adds meaningful guidance—sizing context, usage advice, interpretation rules, and edge-case statuses. No filler or repetition; it's structured with logical progression from output to interpretation to edge cases.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description explains all key return semantics, including confidence range behavior, share basis interpretations, and status handling. It provides a complete mental model for using the tool correctly without needing external documentation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with ui_id already described as 'Project unique identifier'. The description adds no extra parameter detail, but the baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and it doesn't need to compensate.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves recommended daily purchase quantities for a project's keyword, with confidence ranges and supporting volumes. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rh11_keywords_projection or rh11_schedule_get.

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 gives clear guidance: 'Use this before changing a schedule, or to check whether current volumes are sensible.' It also explains when to rely on low/high estimates and how to interpret status values, providing actionable decision criteria.

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