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

Annotations already disclose the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds one behavioral constraint — node_id must originate from a prior search_graph result — but it does not describe return format, error conditions, or edge cases. This is reasonable credit beyond annotations but not rich.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying its weight: what the tool returns, when to use it, and what it requires. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 read-only single-resource tool with two required parameters and a fully described schema, the description covers what, when, and the precondition. There is no output schema, but the description explicitly lists the attributes returned, so nothing critical for describing the tool is missing.

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 schema already explains the nodeId provenance caveat, graphId examples, and optional userId tracking. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail on top of the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 and resource — 'Get the full profile of a specific trend' — and enumerates what the profile includes (detailed description, lifecycle stage, signal strength, geographic scope, and all properties). It also contrasts itself with search_graph by saying it provides deeper detail after a summary, so it is distinguishable from siblings.

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 says when to use it ('when you need deeper detail on a single trend after search_graph returned a summary') and states the hard prerequisite that node_id must come from a prior search_graph result. It doesn't name alternatives such as get_neighbors or get_evidence or give exclusion conditions, so it stops just short of a 5.

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