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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool's safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by warning that pii=true fields identify people and must not be selected or echoed unless explicitly required, and by clarifying row coverage semantics in relations. This exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 front-load the full scope of the tool and then add a critical PII constraint. Every phrase contributes substance — object components, relation details, and an operational safety rule — with no filler or repetition.

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 compensates by thoroughly enumerating what is returned: agent-oriented description, fields with explicit pii flags, source systems, every relation with strength/join key/row coverage, and mentioning findings. The PII warning closes a key operational gap. For a single-object read tool, this is 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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for the only required parameter, 'name', including case-matching behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Full detail for one business object') and enumerates the exact payload: description, PII-flagged fields, source systems, relations, and findings. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_metric or get_process, even without naming them.

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 description implies when to use this tool through 'Full detail for one business object', letting an agent infer it is the depth-first object lookup. However, it never names alternatives such as get_map_overview or states when not to use it, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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