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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results include provenance and stated limitations, and private/non-public items are returned as not-found rather than erroring — a meaningful disclosure for an evidence tool.

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 tight sentence with the cap and the provenance guarantee front-loaded and the not-found behavior as a trailing caveat. Nothing is redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the batch/citation framing is adequate. However, the undocumented include_linked_public_evidence flag and the lack of any routing guidance against 30 sibling tools leave real gaps for an agent deciding how to call this.

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 must carry parameter meaning and does not. It restates the maxItems=15 cap already in the schema, but never explains the include_linked_public_evidence toggle or what the seven entity_type enum values mean, leaving the second parameter entirely opaque.

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 concrete operation and resource: batched retrieval of public records for up to 15 entity references, returned with provenance and limitations. It is clear what the tool produces, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_gtm_related_records or get_public_record_updates that plausibly overlap.

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 'so you can cite them' implies the citation/evidence-gathering use case, and the not-found note hints at a public-records-only scope. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, and no mention of any of the many sibling retrieval tools.

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