Infrastructure notice detail

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent). It explains the window concept, how missing or empty IDs are handled (return matched: false with caveat), and how upstream failures are reported (data_status 'unavailable', upstream_error true). This fully discloses expected behavior in edge cases.

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 concise yet comprehensive, structured with a clear main purpose, followed by context about the window and failure modes. It uses consistent formatting with examples, making it easy to parse. No redundant or extraneous information is present.

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 fully explains the tool's behavior in normal and edge cases, and its relationship to search_infra_projects. Since an output schema exists, it does not need to describe return values. The description is self-contained enough for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with the description 'Reference number from search_infra_projects.' The tool description repeats the parameter name and includes examples, but does not add new semantic information beyond the schema. Given the high coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Return the full record for one infrastructure project by project_id.' It specifies the resource (infrastructure project) and the action (return full record), distinguishing it from search_infra_projects which likely returns multiple results. The scope is unambiguous.

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 description implies when to use it by referencing the 'same latest ~100-notice PhilGEPS window search_infra_projects reads,' suggesting it is the follow-up to a search. It also explains failure behavior, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the sibling list provides context. Overall, usage is clear but not explicitly exhaustive.

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