Get project

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by defining what the returned figures mean (revised contract = original + approved change orders, costs split budgeted/committed/actual, billing split invoiced/paid/outstanding, retainage shown apart) and that amounts are in dollars. It stops short of noting error behavior for an unknown id or any limits, keeping it below a 5.

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 field list is front-loaded and the semantic clarifications are compact, with every sentence carrying information. The opening fragment 'One project:' and the following 'Returns one project' are mildly redundant, costing a small amount of efficiency.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return semantics, and it does so thoroughly for a single-record read tool. What is missing is minor: behavior on a nonexistent id and whether any related collections are truncated.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents project_id including its numeric pattern. The description repeats the same 'project_id from list_projects' guidance without adding format or edge-case meaning, so the 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?

The description states the resource ('One project') and enumerates the returned facets (customer, address, stage, dates, contract amounts, costs, billing, retainage), which lets an agent distinguish it from list-style siblings. It is specific, though it never uses a crisp verb like 'fetch' and leans on the name for the action.

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?

It directs the agent to 'Use project_id from list_projects,' which implicitly defines the browse-then-fetch workflow against the sibling lister. However, it states no conditions for when not to use it and does not address alternatives such as get_job_costing for cost detail.

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