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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: it grounds answers in public footprint, avoids private accounts/breach data, suggests follow-ups, and notes cost/cheapness. This is additive and consistent with annotations.

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 four sentences but every sentence earns its place: it states the core behavior, gives usage guidance with concrete examples, names an alternative, and sets boundaries. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 3-parameter tool with strong annotations and two relevant siblings, the description is complete: it explains the primary use case, the alternative tool, the role of the optional context parameter, and the data-source boundary. No output schema is present, but the mention of follow-ups gives the agent a reasonable expectation of the response shape.

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 already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantic color by giving examples of the kinds of questions ('where someone works now, which accounts are theirs') and by explaining how the `context` parameter is intended to be used (e.g., a prior dossier summary).

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 answers one specific question about a person, grounded in their public footprint, and suggests follow-ups. It distinguishes this from build_dossier by contrasting single-fact answers with full-profile building, making its purpose and scope unmistakable.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus build_dossier: use it for a single fact, and use build_dossier when the question spans someone's whole history. It also provides a concrete alternative path (passing a prior dossier summary as context) and states the public-sources-only constraint.

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