Check project name availability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds behavioral value by noting the tool returns the URL slug and by clarifying that `exclude` makes a rename read as available. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover error conditions or response format.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose and the most nuanced parameter behavior are both front-loaded, and every word earns its place. The description is efficient and scannable.

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?

Without an output schema, the description indicates the tool returns the availability status and the URL slug, which is the essential information. It does not detail the exact response format (e.g., boolean vs. object), but for a simple check tool this is adequate. It also omits error conditions, but given the read-only nature and clear purpose, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for `exclude` by explaining the rename scenario, which goes beyond the schema's terse 'A project id to ignore in the collision check'. This lifts the score above baseline.

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 ('Check'), a precise resource ('project name availability'), and the context ('in an organisation'), plus a notable secondary output ('URL slug it would get'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_projects or validate_project by focusing on availability and slug generation.

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 a concrete usage scenario for the `exclude` parameter (renames that keep their own name), which implicitly signals when to use this tool (before create or rename). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is self-evident and the exclude hint provides practical guidance.

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