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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds two things beyond them: the profile must be 'verified opt-in' (an access precondition) and the response deliberately omits private contacts and documents, which is meaningful output-scope disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource, the key constraint, and the privacy boundary; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers access conditions and output boundaries well. The remaining gap is provenance for record_id, which an agent needs in order to actually obtain a valid ID.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; calling the ID 'opaque' correctly tells the agent not to parse or synthesize it. However it never says where a valid record_id comes from (a search result, presumably) or what form it takes, despite the schema's 1-36 char constraint.

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?

Specific verb (Retrieve) plus resource (verified opt-in public company profile) and access condition. It is distinguishable from get_public_product_profile by resource type, though the description never names that sibling to reinforce the split.

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 phrase 'verified opt-in public profile' implies the tool only applies to opted-in entities, which is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to an alternative (e.g., search_manufacturers) for non-opted-in or enumeration cases.

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