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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read operation but does not disclose permissions, error behavior, or rate limits. It adds some context about the tool's purpose but little beyond that.

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 very concise: two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence is a clear verb-resource pairing, and the second adds context. No fluff.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It explains the tool's purpose but doesn't cover how to use parameters like 'include', 'query_json', or 'detail_profile', nor what the response contains. For a tool with this complexity, more detail is needed.

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 80%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds no information about parameters (e.g., 'id', 'include', 'detail_profile'), providing no additional 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'admin', and explains the purpose: 'resolving owner IDs to people and ranking owner workload.' This distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_admins' by focusing on a single entity.

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 provides explicit context for use: resolving owner IDs to people and ranking workload. It implies when to use (single admin retrieval) versus alternatives like 'list_admins', though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use.

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