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

Annotations already mark this read-only and idempotent, but the description adds critical behavioral context: the publicName field must be used in published copy and the internal name field is a private targeting label. It also discloses the return structure, including class, agentProfile, and the profile fields, which is valuable since there is no output schema.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: usage triggers, return fields, the publicName warning, and the update_icp routing. It is front-loaded with the purpose and usage, then gives the most important behavioral warning before routing information.

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?

Given the one fully documented parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to call it, what it returns, the naming constraint, and how it connects to update_icp. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100% for the single required companyId parameter, including membership context, so the description doesn't need to compensate. The description adds no direct parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get saved Ideal Customer Profiles (ICPs) from Customer Hunter.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_icp and create_icp by defining its exact scope and by naming the update_icp relationship.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user asks about target customer, ideal customer, customer avatar, ICP, or who they should be selling to. It also gives routing guidance, telling the agent to call this before update_icp because its id field is the exact value update_icp needs.

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