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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by disclosing the return format (structured JSON) and providing a concrete extraction example (subject.birthDate), plus clarifying the input anomaly. 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the key input clarification and a useful return-format example. Well structured for quick agent parsing.

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?

Given the single parameter, high schema coverage, and existing output schema, the description covers all essentials: what it does, why the parameter is structured as it is, and what the return looks like. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% – the schema already documents deepReportId and repeats the note about no standalone GET. The description does not add new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Reads a subject's full profile out of a deep report' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by clarifying the input is deepReportId, not a subject id, and implicitly separates from smi_get_deep_report (report-level read) and smi_update_subject (write).

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 explains why deepReportId is used (no standalone GET /subjects/{id}), which is useful context, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool. The intended use case is implied (need subject profile from a deep report) but not contrasted with siblings like smi_get_deep_report.

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