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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return content, free/full tier differences, the nature of energy_context as external reference data, and the key behavioral caveat 'Descriptive — recorded status, never inference.' This goes well beyond a bare 'get' and gives the agent an accurate model of what the tool returns and what it does not.

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?

The description is long, but its length is justified by the need to explain free/full tier behavior and the nuanced external-reference nature of energy_context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and field list, then moves to usage guidance and caveats. A few sentences are dense, but each adds useful information.

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 tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It defines returned fields, filtering behavior, tier differences, external data provenance, and when a sibling should be used instead. Nothing essential for correct invocation or interpretation 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%, so the schema already documents actor_name and designation well. The description's 'Filter by designation or actor name' mostly restates the schema rather than adding new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve whole Sovereign Capability Profile (SCP) actors' and enumerates exactly what a record contains. It also distinguishes itself from query_scp by naming the alternative and its different use cases, making sibling differentiation explicit.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('fetch complete actor records') and when to use the sibling instead ('to pivot one dimension across all actors, compare actors side by side, or read the dimension-watch register, use query_scp'). Tier behavior for free versus full tier is also explained, giving an agent concrete selection criteria.

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