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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral details about the promotion label being null if not promoted, and that it returns freshness. It doesn't repeat annotation claims and adds context beyond them.

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 concise and front-loaded, with three sentences and an example. The example 'arguments {}' is misleading since tenant_id is required, which slightly reduces clarity. However, overall it is compact and structured.

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 getter with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description adequately explains the return values (choice_profile envelope, freshness, promotion label). It also gives usage context. It doesn't describe error scenarios, but that's acceptable for this tool type.

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 input schema has one parameter (tenant_id) with a clear description. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The description doesn't provide additional semantic value beyond the schema, thus the baseline score 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 the tool fetches a tenant's full choice_profile, including freshness and promotion label. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly positioning it after federation_choice_compare, ensuring the agent knows this tool is for retrieving all published data for one tenant.

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 usage context: 'Use after federation_choice_compare has narrowed to a single tenant'. This gives a clear when-to-use. It doesn't list when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to differentiate.

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