project_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a read-only lookup ('Find') but does not specify whether the operation is safe, what happens on no match, or any permissions required. It also does not describe the return format or potential side effects.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or repeated 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?

For a single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately tells an agent what input to provide and the general purpose. However, it omits details like the shape of the returned mapping, multiple-match behavior, or error handling. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is nearly complete but not exhaustive.

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?

The input schema only defines nameOrDomain as a string with 0% coverage. The description clarifies that the parameter can be a project name, client, or domain, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. This compensates for the missing schema description, though it stops short of giving concrete examples or format constraints.

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 ('Find') and a specific resource ('local project mapping'), and lists search criteria (project name, client, or domain). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from the broad GSC/GA4 analytics siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly-named 'project_mappings' sibling.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling 'project_mappings' exists, an agent cannot tell which tool to prefer without additional context. No exclusions or conditions are stated.

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