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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the behavioral trait 'without exposing database details,' which conveys an abstraction/privacy layer beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 sentences, no filler. The core function is front-loaded, and the suitability clause is concise. Every word adds value.

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 tool with 6 parameters, a nested filters object, and an output schema, the description conveys the overall purpose and when to use it. It does not enumerate per-analysis-type restrictions (e.g., ranking only supports owners), but those are documented in the parameter descriptions. The presence of an output schema and the read-only annotations lower the burden, making this sufficiently complete.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions entities and analysis modes that map to the 'entity' and 'analysis_type' parameters, but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema already documents. It does not compensate for the few undocumented parameters (e.g., no description of 'filters' semantics beyond schema), but that gap is small.

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 ('Runs a constrained analytics query'), the entities analyzed (owners, law firms, correspondents), and the output modes (rankings, counts, snapshots, timelines). It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly targeting 'custom aggregate business questions that a single search or summary tool does not answer.'

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?

Provides a clear suitability statement ('Suited to custom aggregate business questions...'), implying that if a single search or summary tool can answer, this tool should not be used. Does not enumerate specific exclusions or alternatives beyond that, but the guidance is explicit enough for routing.

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