Read one SEToolBox project

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds value: the two error statuses and their causes, the size warning for full reads, that the payload sits under "data", and that family names in the summary are keys in the full form. That is behavioral context well beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and selector rule; each subsequent sentence carries distinct information (detail modes, size, error handling). The middle paragraph is dense, but nothing is padding or restatement of the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: it enumerates the summary fields, characterizes the full export, and specifies where the payload lives. Combined with the error cases, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 75% and the schema documents projectId, projectName, and timeoutSeconds individually. The description adds the mutual-exclusion constraint ("never both") that the schema does not express, and defines what each detail enum value actually returns.

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 ("Read one project") plus the two admissible selectors, and names the sibling it depends on (setoolbox_list_projects). It is immediately distinguishable from setoolbox_list_projects and setoolbox_get_result.

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?

Gives concrete use cases (review a study, cross-check values, find an analysis id), an explicit rule for choosing detail ("ask for it when you need values"), and routing under failure (select by projectId from setoolbox_list_projects on ambiguous_project).

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