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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating exactly which data categories are returned and framing it as a read-before-write step, which is genuine behavioral context.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the resource, with the returned categories listed compactly. No filler or repetition of the title.

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, the description usefully enumerates what the caller receives and positions the call in the read-then-update workflow. It is nearly complete for a simple single-parameter read, missing only the identifier's format and any error/empty-result behavior.

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% — the single parameter ivr_config_id has no documentation anywhere. The description only weakly compensates by implying the identifier selects 'one receptionist', but it never states the expected format or where the ID comes from. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 gives a specific verb ('Returns') plus a resource ('one receptionist's profile') and enumerates the returned data categories (contacts, locations, opening hours, categorized business facts). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names a sibling tool or explicitly contrasts itself with the upsert_* write tools.

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 clause 'before you update them' supplies a concrete usage context: read this prior to performing an update, which implicitly routes the agent away from the upsert_receptionist_* siblings. No explicit when-not-to-use condition or alternative tool is named, so it stops short of a 5.

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