Project details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them by disclosing that bids and employer identity are not exposed, which tells the agent what it will not find and prevents wasted follow-up calls.

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, no filler, with the resource and its returned fields front-loaded before the workflow hint. Every clause adds information the agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes return content and notes the excluded fields, so an agent knows what it gets. Minor gaps remain around error behavior for an unresolvable project reference, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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% and the parameter description already explains the token, slug, or URL forms, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only contributes the sequencing hint that the token comes from kl_projects, which is baseline-level added value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one Karlancer project in full") and enumerates exactly what comes back: brief, budget, duration, hire deadline, skills, category path, city. That field list cleanly separates it from the list-oriented sibling kl_projects.

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?

"Use after kl_projects" gives an explicit prerequisite and implies the token provenance, which is the main routing decision an agent faces. It does not name a concrete alternative for related needs (e.g. kl_similar_projects for recommendations), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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