Infrastructure notice detail

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the description's burden. The description adds 'full record' but does not explain the openWorldHint or potential partial data behavior, so it provides only minimal extra transparency beyond 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?

A single, well-structured sentence directly states the action, resource, and parameter. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently sets expectations. It explains the core purpose without needing to elaborate on return values or additional behavior.

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 schema already documents project_id as 'Reference number from search_infra_projects'. The description's 'by project_id' adds no new semantic detail, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 specifies the verb 'Return' and the resource 'full record for one infrastructure project', uniquely identifying a detail retrieval operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_infra_projects (searching) and summarize_infra_spending (aggregation).

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?

The parameter description explicitly notes the project_id is a 'Reference number from search_infra_projects', implying this tool is the follow-up detail lookup after a search. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for lists or summaries), so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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