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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is to add return/behavioral context. It does so by specifying that results come from filings with sources, include people and passages, and order passages strongest-evidence-first. It omits not-found behavior and any auth or rate-limit context, so not a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence lists the useful return facets without filler. Every clause adds selection-relevant information, especially 'each with its source' and 'strongest evidence first.'

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?

For a detail-fetch tool with no output schema, the description gives a solid inventory of returned data and ordering, enough to choose and call it. It stops short of explaining edge cases or the full structure of profile, size, and filings, so 4 rather than 5.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema fully documents both organization and limit. The description adds no syntax, default, maximum, or filtering meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with 'One organization' and enumerates the returned facets (profile, size, filings, people, passages), so the agent can tell this is a single-organization detail fetch rather than a list. It does not explicitly name list_organizations as the alternative, which keeps it just 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?

It implies use for retrieving details of one organization by saying 'One organization,' but gives no explicit when-to-use rule, prerequisites, or alternative tool names. An agent must infer that list_organizations handles enumeration and search_passages handles passage search.

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