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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the bar is low; the description still adds real context by disclosing the conditional nature of share price and SEC financials ("if listed") and that the payload spans many domains. It does not describe pagination or how many rows the profile returns, but with annotations and an output schema in place this is solid added value.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the scope ("One operator") followed by the payload inventory and an inline parameter example. The long comma-separated list is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the profile returns.

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 2-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it spends words enumerating returns the output schema likely already defines while leaving max_rows entirely unexplained. One concrete gap remains for an agent tuning result size.

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 50%: empresa is documented in the schema and reinforced by a concrete example value, but max_rows is undocumented in both schema and description. The example adds marginal value over the schema for empresa while leaving the row-limit parameter fully opaque.

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 verb is implicit (get) but the resource and scope are precise: a single-operator profile bundling production, share, change, areas, basins, wells, investments, reserves, and conditional share price/SEC financials. It clearly reads as an aggregate snapshot rather than a raw query, though it never names the sibling queries (query_production, query_investments, etc.) it supersedes.

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?

"One operator" hints at single-entity scoping, but the description never says when to use this versus query_production, query_reserves, or rank_entities. No prerequisites, no when-not guidance, and the example illustrates the parameter rather than the usage context.

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