Get project

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is context, and it delivers: 'as its public page shows it' sets the visibility scope, 'Times are UTC' removes timestamp ambiguity, and 'whether it is still open' flags a status field. It does not say what happens for a deleted or private project_id, which is the remaining gap.

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 lead sentence front-loads the payload well, but the second sentence re-enumerates the same fields (budget, buyer, proposals) at greater length, so a meaningful share of the text is repetition rather than new information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the returned fields and the UTC time convention. For a one-parameter read tool that is nearly sufficient; only edge-case behavior (missing/closed project) is unaddressed.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines project_id and its two accepted forms. The description restates the same guidance ('from search_projects or the project's URL') without adding format rules or validation behavior, so 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('One project's full brief') and enumerates exactly what comes back: budget, attachments, interview questions, buyer, proposal count. The reference to pulling the id from search_projects makes the single-record scope unambiguous against that sibling and list_my_projects.

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?

'Pass a project_id from search_projects or the project's URL' tells the agent both where the identifier comes from and the preceding step in the workflow. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., use list_my_projects for bulk, or what to do when a project is closed), so not a full 5.

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