freshbooks_get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds essentially nothing behavioral beyond restating the identifier type: no note on failure when the id is unknown, no auth/credential requirement, no indication of what a project payload contains.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with the action and the identifier constraint stated up front. Zero filler.

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 trivial single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It nonetheless omits any note on not-found behavior or what the returned project looks like, leaving small gaps an agent might need.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'Project id', so the schema carries the load. The description's phrase 'numeric id' mildly reinforces the integer type but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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 a single project by its numeric id'), which cleanly distinguishes a single-item fetch from the sibling freshbooks_list_projects. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no precondition (e.g. project must already exist), and no routing to alternatives such as freshbooks_list_projects for discovery or freshbooks_create_project for creation. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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