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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses substantial behavior: acquisitions are VERIFIED-only and 'unaudited or refuted events never surface,' results are 'honest-empty when the key is unknown,' same-name footprint matches are 'never a guaranteed identity,' an empty footprint is normal, the source is free, and caveats ride in tool_notes. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot 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?

The description is dense but front-loaded with the purpose and the key-passing instruction first, then the return shape, then caveats. Every sentence carries information — especially the enumerated return fields, which substitute for the missing output schema. It borders on long, but nothing is padding.

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 appropriately documents the return envelope (summary, borrower_norm, borrower, profile, acquisitions, count, public_footprint) and each sub-field. It also covers edge cases (honest-empty, empty footprint, name-match uncertainty) and tells the agent where caveats live. Complete for an agent to call and interpret correctly.

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%, so both borrower_norm (canonical key from ol_bdc_top_borrowers) and limit (default 20, cap 100) are already documented in the schema. The description's note that borrower_norm must be the canonical key matches what the schema already says, adding little new syntactic or semantic detail. Baseline 3 for a fully covered schema.

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+resource+scope: 'Profile + verified M&A/ownership history for one private-credit borrower.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming ol_bdc_top_borrowers as the key source and enumerating exactly what it returns (acquisitions, public_footprint), so an agent can tell it apart from ol_bdc_borrower_dispersion, ol_bdc_borrower_news_today, or ol_bdc_common_borrowers.

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?

It gives the essential prerequisite — 'Pass the canonical borrower_norm (from ol_bdc_top_borrowers)' — which tells the agent how to obtain a valid key. However it never states when NOT to use this tool or which sibling to prefer for related needs (e.g., dispersion or news on the same borrower), so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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