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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the cost/network profile ('does not contact providers or spend credits'), which structured fields do not capture.

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 front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the resource is stated first and the cost/network caveat second.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the undocumented brandId parameter plus the absence of any routing to alternative retrieval tools.

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 0% and the single brandId parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description only weakly implies it via 'this brand's' and gives no format, sourcing, or constraint guidance to compensate for the 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('saved public evidence and notes') scoped to a brand. It conveys what is retrieved but does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like list_intelligence_targets or get_intelligence_target, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Does not contact providers or spend credits' implies this is the free, cached-read path versus scan/quote tools, but no alternative or when-not condition is named. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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