Get project

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

While annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, the description adds 'returning all fields by default' which directly contradicts the schema's statement that omitting 'fields' yields a 'compact default set.' This is a factual misrepresentation of the tool's behavior. The monetary unit note is useful, but the misleading default undermines transparency.

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?

The description is three short sentences: a clear purpose statement, a usage tip, and a unit note. It is front-loaded with the core action and every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the typical list-then-get flow, field narrowing, and monetary unit clarification. However, the incorrect default-set claim leaves a significant gap in understanding the actual response behavior. No mention of error cases, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and annotations.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. However, the description's claim about 'all fields by default' conflicts with the schema's 'compact default set,' making its guidance on the fields parameter misleading rather than helpful. It adds no meaningful semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states 'Fetch one project by its numeric easybill ID' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from list_projects and other sibling tools. It also previews the fields parameter, though the 'all fields' claim is later contradicted by the schema.

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?

Explicitly advises using easybill_list_projects first when only a name or number is known, providing a clear alternative for a different lookup context. Also instructs to pass 'fields' to narrow the response, which gives concrete usage guidance beyond just the schema.

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