Project settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description earns credit for what it adds: timestamps are rendered in the project's time zone with an explicit UTC offset and fall back to +00:00 when the Node lacks the zone, and secret keys are never returned (only their creation dates). That privacy and formatting detail is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from 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?

One long run-on sentence packs a field inventory plus a timezone caveat; the scoping statement is front-loaded, but the comma-spliced field list is hard to scan and the offset example (2026-10-13T22:41:41.638-03:00) is verbose relative to the point it makes.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of declaring what comes back, and it does so field by field, plus the time-zone rendering rule and the secret-key exclusion. Missing only an auth/failure note (e.g., behavior for an unknown project_id) to be fully 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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains project_id ('from list_projects'), and the description adds nothing about it. Baseline 3 for a fully documented single parameter.

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 identifies the resource ('the settings of one project') and enumerates exactly which settings are returned, which clearly separates it from the analytics siblings (visits, funnel, overview). It lacks an explicit verb, so the read intent is only implied, but the noun-plus-field-list makes the purpose unmistakable for an agent comparing siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the description never says 'call this to discover configuration before calling analytics tools' or names any alternative. The only routing hint ('from list_projects') appears in the parameter schema, not in the description.

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