invoiceninja_get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond a restatement of the name — no mention of permission requirements, error behavior for an unknown id, or pagination/relation loading, and 'all details' arguably conflicts with the fields/include filters.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource and identifier first and no filler. It is efficient, though the trailing 'with all details' is imprecise rather than informative.

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 read-only getter with 100% schema coverage and a full annotation set, most of what an agent needs is present elsewhere. However, with no output schema the description could have said what a project object contains or how fields/include shape the response, and 'all details' is misleading against those filters.

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%, so all four parameters (id, fields, include, response_format) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the 'hashed id' aspect, adding no new syntax or format meaning. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one project by its hashed id') and scopes it to a single record, which distinguishes it from the sibling list_projects without naming it. 'With all details' is slightly loose given the fields/include parameters, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of list_projects for browsing, and no note about when to prefer get_record or search. The agent must infer the retrieval-vs-list distinction from the description alone.

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