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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'Explain'—it doesn't mention output format, level of detail, or any side effects. It is consistent with annotations but adds minimal value.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 and two parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what 'current v7.2 receipt' implies (e.g., profile must have one) or what the explanation looks like. An agent lacks sufficient context to call this correctly without additional assumptions.

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%, so the description must clarify parameters. It names 'handle' and 'dimension' but doesn't explain what 'handle' refers to (e.g., a public profile handle) or define the dimension values beyond the enum in the schema. The agent must infer meaning, which is risky.

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 verb ('Explain'), a clear resource ('one impact dimension for a public profile's current v7.2 receipt'), and adds version specificity ('v7.2'), which distinguishes it from generic profile tools. While it doesn't explicitly name a sibling, the combination of verb and resource makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_impact_profile or explain_verification. It doesn't mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. There is no explicit 'when-not' or alternative routing.

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