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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds genuine context by naming the fields returned (targeting criteria, AI-generated vs human-edited, primary status, audience size), which helps an agent decide whether a call is worth making. It stops short of describing error behavior for a nonexistent ID.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb, resource, cardinality, and returned fields in a single clause. Every element carries information an agent can act on.

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 single-parameter read whose annotations already cover safety and closed-world scope, the definition is essentially complete, and it usefully previews the returned fields despite there being no output schema. The only gap is behavior when the supplied ID does not exist, which an agent would need to know to handle the call 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% and the single parameter is already documented as the numeric ICP ID sourced from list_icps, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates "by ID" without adding format, origin, or failure-mode detail, which is the expected baseline for a fully documented single-param 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Retrieves one Ideal Customer Profile by ID") and enumerates the returned facets, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_primary_icp or get_audience_size, leaving that separation to be inferred from the name and the "by ID" phrasing.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool takes an ID, so the agent can infer it must first obtain an ID elsewhere. The description never names get_primary_icp as the shortcut for the primary profile or states when this tool should be preferred over it, so routing among the many get_* siblings is left to the agent.

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