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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the data is versioned, CORS-open, and 'assembled from canon,' which informs an agent about stability, accessibility, and source trustworthiness. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then expands into a concise field list and ends with a usage note. The comma-separated field enumeration is dense but useful and not padded. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because the field list is somewhat long and the 'Machine-readable description' phrasing repeats the title.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It provides the filter mechanism, data scope, versioning, CORS access, and source provenance. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without additional clarification.

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 covers the single optional 'product' parameter with a description and examples, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description's 'Pass ?product to filter' adds query-parameter syntax but not substantial semantic meaning beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific action and resource: retrieving machine-readable descriptions of PeopleAnalyst products. It enumerates the exact fields returned (name, category, oneLiner, problemFrames, etc.), which removes ambiguity and distinguishes it from the sibling get_* tools. The title reinforces the purpose without contradiction.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: when you need versioned, CORS-open, machine-readable product portfolio descriptions. It also provides a concrete usage instruction with 'Pass ?product to filter.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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