get_project_facts

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by describing facts as 'current', 'evidence-backed', and 'public', which clarifies freshness, reliability, and visibility beyond the annotation booleans.

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 a single, tight sentence with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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 read-only tool with a strong annotation set and an output schema, the description gives enough to make a successful call. The main gap is that locale and request_id semantics are left entirely to schema inference, and there is no explicit routing guidance, but these are minor for this low-complexity 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for missing parameter documentation. It only hints at project_id through 'for one project' and says nothing about locale or request_id. The parameter names and enum are self-explanatory, but the description adds little value beyond the schema.

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 provides a specific verb ('get'), resource ('current evidence-backed public facts'), scope ('one project'), and enough detail to distinguish it from siblings such as search_ai_projects or compare_ai_projects. The singular project focus makes the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 phrase 'for one project' clearly implies this tool is for retrieving facts about a specific project, which differentiates it from search, browse, and comparison tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it.

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