acc_get_project

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the tool returns per-product activation statuses that transition to 'active' after creation. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the polling use case, though it does not detail additional response behaviors (handled by output schema).

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary function and followed by a usage hint. No fluff or redundancy.

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 has a simple parameter set, an output schema (so return values are handled), and clear annotations. The description fully specifies the tool's role in the workflow—checking activation after project creation—making it complete for selection and invocation.

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 both parameters already described in the schema (account_id as speed-up hint, project_id with GUID format). The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('one project's details') and specifies the scope (per-product activation status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on detailed retrieval for a single project after creation, distinct from listing or item-level tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use after acc_create_project' to check activation status, providing a clear context for when to use it. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is specific and actionable.

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