get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the complete return data (units, images, floorplans, documents, links) and specific details like unit statuses and prices. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but for a read operation this is acceptable.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence summary followed by bullet points for usage. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose 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?

Given no output schema and low complexity (single parameter), the description covers the necessary information: purpose, return content, and use cases. It lacks details on pagination or limitations, but those are irrelevant for a single-project retrieval.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'id' with description 'Project ID'. The description adds value by explaining the scope of the response (full details), which goes beyond the schema's minimal info. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the extra context justifies a 4.

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 clearly states 'Get full details of a single project by ID', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_projects' which list multiple projects, and 'get_property' for a different entity.

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 provides explicit use cases in bullet points, such as checking unit statuses and viewing media. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for the agent to decide.

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