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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that the content is public profile material with defined sub-views; it says nothing about auth requirements, payload size, or freshness. Adequate, but not much value beyond the 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the view-selection hint. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema and no sentence is 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 single-optional-parameter, read-only, closed-world tool with no output schema, the description covers the content domain (identity, scope, exclusions, contacts) and the view tradeoff, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It stops short of describing the response shape, which matters slightly more given there is no output schema.

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% and the enum values are already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a genuine selection heuristic — prefer the smaller 'services' or 'boundaries' view when the full profile is not needed — which tells the agent why to pick a non-default value, not just what the values are.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and a precisely scoped resource (Leviathan Systems' public company identity, service scope, exclusions, contact guidance), so an agent immediately knows what content this returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the generic siblings read_resource/search_resources, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

'Select a smaller view when only services or scope boundaries are needed' gives real guidance on parameter choice, but there is no statement of when to use this tool instead of the sibling read_resource or search_resources. Usage is implied by the content, not by explicit when/when-not framing.

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