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

Annotations already establish readOnly=true, openWorld=false, and destructive=false, lowering the bar. The description adds meaningful context by enumerating the returned content and clarifying that benchmark values are excluded (retrievable via get_benchmarks), which shapes the agent's expectation of what this call actually yields.

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 dense sentence, but every clause earns its place by naming a distinct piece of returned content or a routing hint. Front-loaded with the tool's purpose, though the long enumeration makes it slightly heavy.

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 no output schema, the description fully compensates by listing the fields returned and explicitly deferring benchmark values to a sibling tool. For a one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears 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% and the single parameter is fully documented as the KPI slug with an example. The description restates the same slug-from-search_kpis guidance without adding format or edge-case detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (retrieve full intelligence for a single KPI) and enumerates exactly what the response contains: definition, formula, pitfalls, levers, related KPIs, groups, and benchmark metadata. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to get_benchmarks for actual values and search_kpis for the id.

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?

Clearly states the prerequisite: the kpi_id slug must come from search_kpis, and it routes value lookups to get_benchmarks. This gives an agent a clear context for when this tool is the right call, though it stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule.

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