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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does much of it: it discloses the confidence-weighting formula, the 1.5x corroboration multiplier, attestation-tier damping of the Scry contribution, [0,1] bounding, a signed P38 receipt, and the actionable cross_lens flags. It omits auth prerequisites, rate limits, and failure modes, keeping it short of a 5.

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 critical constraint is front-loaded and the lens breakdown is well-organized, but the "at least one of ip/domain/entity" requirement is stated twice and the "no siloed competitor can give you" framing is marketing noise that doesn't help an agent call the tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — and it names cross_lens.hits, cross_lens.flags values, the confidence score range, and the receipt, which is sufficient for a fused-profile tool. Auth/rate-limit context is the only notable gap.

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds real value the schema cannot: since no parameter is marked required, the "at least one of ip/domain/entity is required" constraint is the only place that rule is conveyed. The lens mapping (ip→Scry, domain/entity→Sigil+Tracker) is reinforced in prose.

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+resource ("profile_entity" fuses all three lenses into a confidence-scored profile for one subject) and explicitly contrasts itself against cross_lens_verify and cross_lens_lookup. An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a 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?

Gives explicit timing ("Call this before routing traffic, bidding on inventory, or trusting a counterparty") and names both alternatives with their differing scope (one node → one verdict vs. one node → raw view). When-to-use and when-to-prefer-else are both present.

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