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

The readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations already establish this as a safe, closed-domain read. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — VIP access is required — but says nothing about the shape of the aggregate result, whether month is optional, or what an empty result means.

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 short sentences, verb-first, with the scoping and access prerequisite front-loaded. Nothing is redundant, though the second sentence fragment ('VIP required.') is terse to the point of omitting what VIP unlocks.

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 six-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits the return shape of the aggregate, the meaning of the dimension enum values, and the role of the optional month parameter, leaving key invocation details undocumented.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden for six parameters. It only implicitly touches population ('submitted or invited') and dimension ('one aggregate profile dimension'); visa, state, occupation (6-digit code), and the optional month filter get no explanation at all.

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: 'Return one aggregate profile dimension' for submitted or invited EOIs. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_score_distribution or get_pathway_overview, though 'one occupation pathway' is ambiguous since the schema requires separate occupation, visa, and state parameters.

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 'VIP required' prerequisite and the submitted/invited scoping imply usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_score_distribution, get_score_position, or compare_pathways. The agent must infer the selection rule from the name.

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