get_cospend_project

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond those annotations: the VIEWER access/permission requirement and the fact that the response mirrors a list entry plus the member/balance field semantics. This is meaningful additive behavior disclosure with no contradiction.

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?

Four tight blocks with no filler: purpose, access precondition, parameter definition, and return guidance. The most important information (what it does) is front-loaded, and the Args/Returns layout is scannable. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and full safety annotations, the description covers the essentials: purpose, permission requirement, parameter format, and how to interpret key return fields. Minor gaps are unaddressed error cases (e.g., behavior when the project id is invalid or access is denied), but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'project_id: String project id (slug)' clarifies the expected format beyond the bare schema title 'Project Id'. The Returns section also adds semantic guidance on consuming the output ('Use members for member ids/names and balance for the per-member balance map'), which teaches correct parameter/output usage.

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+resource: 'Get full info for a single Cospend project (members, balance, shares, …)'. The parenthetical enumerates the concrete payload, and the 'single' qualifier plus the phrase 'same shape as one entry from list_cospend_projects' clearly separates it from the sibling listing tool and from the statistics/settlement variants.

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?

Provides a useful precondition ('Requires VIEWER access on the project') and implies it is the single-item counterpart to list_cospend_projects via the return-shape note. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over get_cospend_project_statistics or get_cospend_project_settlement, nor gives any 'when not to use' guidance. Usage is implied, not spelled out.

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