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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are limited to publisher-disclosed public material and private/restricted data is never returned. It does not cover auth needs or what happens for an unknown/unlisted company.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the returned contents, then the privacy boundary. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates well by listing the profile's sections. The remaining shortfall is caller-side: nothing tells the agent how to form the `company` identifier or how to handle an unlisted company.

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 single `company` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only says 'a listed company' without specifying whether the value is a name, ticker, domain, or an ID obtained from find_company. With one required param and no schema help, this is the definition's biggest gap.

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 (Read) and resource (trust profile), and enumerates exactly what the profile contains: summary, framework and control statuses, subprocessors, and document titles. The 'public-tier ... a listed company publishes' scoping makes it unmistakable versus ask_company, find_company, and invite_company.

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?

Usage is implied by the content list (use when you need a company's published trust/compliance posture), and 'Never returns private or restricted material' signals a boundary. But it never names an alternative or states when to prefer ask_company over this tool, so the agent must infer routing.

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