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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral context: free tier returns only met status and headline (plus US sample in full), full tier adds constraint/qualification/sources, and energy_context is served in full on both tiers. It also clarifies the data is descriptive recorded status, never inference. Minor gap: no pagination/return-format note.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the sibling routing. The energy_context explanation is long and somewhat tangential, but it is scoping-relevant (external reference data outside the analytical stack), so it earns most of its place. Slightly verbose overall.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing return contents, and it does so thoroughly (field-by-field enumeration plus tier-dependent richness). It also clarifies provenance of energy_context. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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% and both params (actor_name, designation) are documented in the schema itself, so baseline 3 applies. The description restates the filters ('Filter by designation or actor name') without adding syntax or format beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('whole SCP actors') and enumerates the exact fields returned (designation, capability score, severance result, assessed, D1–D7 met/not-met, energy_context). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling query_scp, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('to pivot one dimension across all actors, compare actors side by side, or read the dimension-watch register, use `query_scp`') and gives the selecting condition (fetch complete actor records). Clear when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else.

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