get_project

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get detailed information' is consistent with that read-only profile — no contradiction. The description adds the scoping notion of 'specific project' but provides no additional behavioral context such as return shape, error behavior, or existence guarantees. Since annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 description is appropriately sized at two short lines with the purpose front-loaded. The 'Args:' line is redundant with the schema but harmless. There is no wasted prose, though the docstring-style repetition could have been omitted entirely.

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?

The tool is simple — one required parameter, an output schema exists, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile, so return-value documentation is unnecessary. The main gap is the absence of usage contrast with list_projects and no detail on what 'detailed information' includes. Adequate for making a correct call, but with clear room for improvement.

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 carries the burden of explaining the parameter. However, it only restates 'project_id: Project ID,' which is tautological with the schema's property name and title. It adds no format details, examples, or notes on how the ID is obtained. The parameter is self-evident, which softens the impact, but the description still adds zero semantic value.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific project.' The qualifier 'specific' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_projects, and the resource name distinguishes it from get_service and get_deployment. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it misses the top score.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention list_projects for enumerating projects, create_project/delete_project for lifecycle operations, or get_service for the service-level counterpart. The readOnlyHint annotation provides implicit context but no explicit usage direction.

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