get_project_declaration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It reveals the tool returns multiple fields and mentions a 'Pro tariff' restriction, but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or rate limits, which is acceptable for a read-like operation.

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 comprehensive sentence listing key fields, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. No redundant words, and it efficiently communicates the tool's output.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the main aspects of the declaration. It mentions historical changes and the Pro tariff, which adds value. Minor missing details like pagination or response format, but overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter object_id, which has a description. The tool description does not add additional context for the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a project declaration for an object, listing specific components (house parameters, developer, bank, deadlines, areas, changes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_developer or check_escrow, which focus on specific aspects.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_construction_permit or get_developer_risk_summary. The description does not provide context, exclusions, or prerequisites beyond the required object_id.

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