hero_get_project

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds payload-level context - documents include quotes/invoices with PDF links and the project logbook/history - which tells the agent what a call actually yields, though it says nothing about behavior on invalid ids or permission needs.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource and padded with nothing. Every clause contributes enumerable content.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does list the major fields, so an agent knows what to expect. It stops short of noting failure behavior for unknown ids or how multi-id results are keyed, which a batch getter would ideally state.

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% for the single 'ids' parameter. The description's 'one or more projects by id' only restates the array/batch semantics already present in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get full details') and resource ('projects by id'), then enumerates the returned fields (customer, contact, site address, status, documents, logbook). This clearly separates it from list-style siblings, but it never names an alternative such as hero_list_projects, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: you call this when you already have project ids and want the complete record instead of a list. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or mention of an alternative tool, so the agent must infer the selection logic.

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