Project snapshot

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses important behavioral context: usage figures are calls with caller addresses per day rather than people, market context may be withheld and the reason shown, some blocks are context-only and never building, and the result is explicitly not price advice. It also states what HEY does not know, giving the agent a realistic sense of data gaps.

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 front-loaded with a clear question and a single-read framing, but the second sentence is a dense, comma-heavy inventory of sections and caveats. Phrases like 'kind or why it is withheld' and 'measured, not tracked or unread' are informative but cryptic and would benefit from clearer structure.

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 complex composite snapshot tool with an output schema, the description competently enumerates the major content areas, caveats, and freshness/unknowns. It does not explain the return structure, which is acceptable because an output schema exists, but it could still clarify error behavior or slug lookup failure modes.

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 100%, with the slug parameter already documented and exemplified in the schema. The description adds only the phrase 'by slug' without extra constraints, format details, or validation guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states that this tool provides a single project snapshot by slug, covering Research Summary, identity, activity, Build Momentum, usage, verification, locks, changes, freshness, and unknowns. It distinguishes itself from a simple project lookup by describing a comprehensive multi-section read, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_project_timeline or project_diff.

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 phrase 'One read by slug' implies usage when an agent has a project slug and wants a consolidated status view. However, the description does not state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as find_projects, get_changes, get_project_timeline, or project_diff, nor does it give any exclusions.

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