get_card_project

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

With readOnlyHint: true, the safety profile is already known. The description adds valuable context about the return payload's breadth—customizations, paper/color options, and pages—which is helpful given there is no output schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 communicates the resource, scope, and key included content with no filler. The parenthetical list is compact and 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 one-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description adequately explains the scope and response contents. It could be more explicit about response format or error handling, but the essentials are present.

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 the single project_uuid parameter is already documented. The description only restates 'one invitation project' and does not add further meaning about the parameter's format or behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('get'), identifies the resource ('one invitation project'), and enumerates what is included ('all customizations... paper/color options, and per-customization pages'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_card_projects and related card tools.

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 conveys a clear use case: retrieve full details for a single project. The schema parameter description ('from list_card_projects') adds contextual guidance. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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