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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: a clear cost warning (1 credit per call, no 'already paid' registry), which is important for agent planning, and it specifies that full=true returns the same enriched columns as the CSV export. This is meaningful and non-redundant.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second clarifies full mode, and the third gives the cost/routing caveat. There is no filler; every sentence conveys a decision-relevant fact. The warning about basile_export is the most important guidance for avoiding misuses and is included concisely.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the annotations already define safety/interactivity, the description is complete as far as the data needs to be. It adequately specifies the expected input provenance (from search), explains full mode, and hands off bulk work to basile_export. No crucial gap remains for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents id, kind, and full with descriptions. The tool description adds the 'full=true → all enriched columns' meaning, but that is largely supported by the schema's own parameter description. It does not provide significant extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already gives, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool retrieves a detailed record for a person or company via its _id, with an explicit definition of what full=true means. It also differentiates the tool from sibling tools by noting the cost and the availability of basile_export for bulk retrieval, so an agent can distinguish this lookup tool from the search and export 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?

The description is explicit about when to use this tool: after a search, for a single entity. It also gives a concrete when-not-to-use rule, warning against looping over many ids and directing the agent to basile_export for multiple records. This directly addresses alternative selection, without leaving it to inference.

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