Get Everhour project details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying error handling (404), return contents (name, platform, status, etc.), and an example. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, Examples, and Error Handling sections. It is concise but includes some redundancy with the schema. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Given the simple tool with good annotations, the description covers input parameters, error cases, and return contents. It is sufficient for an agent to use correctly, though it could mention authentication requirements or rate limits.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds meaning beyond schema by providing example project_id format ('as:1208034567890123'), enum values for response_format, default value, and explanation of return fields. This compensates for the lack of output schema.

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 explicitly states 'Fetch a single project by its Everhour project ID', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool everhour_list_projects by focusing on a single project, and mentions the return of the full project record.

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 includes an example and error handling but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like everhour_list_projects. The context is implied by the parameter requirement but lacks explicit guidance.

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