Get project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-structured behavioral fact — 'Does not use credits' — which tells the agent this call has no billing cost, useful context that annotations do not carry.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core identification (what it fetches and by what keys) is front-loaded ahead of the secondary credit note.

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?

For a simple single-resource read with one documented required parameter and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly. It omits return-shape detail, but with no output schema and trivial parameters that is a minor gap rather than an obstacle.

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%, and the description's 'id, UUID, or slug' merely restates the schema's own text. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the single parameter and the description adds no format or constraint detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (a single project) and names the three accepted lookup keys (id, UUID, slug). The word 'single' plus the singular resource clearly separates it from the sibling list_projects without opening either 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the singular counterpart to list_projects from the phrasing and the required projectId. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, so it stays at the minimum-viable level.

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