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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: role-based access model, admin-only read-only break-glass escalation, and the currentFacts semantics (client-shared facts plus document-derived facts with document/page/section but never quoted text). This materially exceeds the annotation payload.

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-loads the core purpose well, but the remainder is dense with specialized jargon ('bounded shared member intelligence', 'currentFacts', 'X1 read from documents') that is not self-explanatory and reads as internal shorthand. Every sentence is relevant, yet the phrasing is more convoluted than it needs to be.

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 read-only tool with full annotation coverage, a 100%-covered schema, and no output schema, the description supplies the access model and the semantics of the returned facts. It is largely complete; only the return-shape and how it differs from sibling client getters are left implicit.

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 clientId, clientEmail, and debugAccess are already documented in the schema. The description restates debugAccess semantics ('read-only break-glass when eligible') but adds no new syntax, format, or precedence detail, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Canonical MCP read for your profile or a profile view for a client/member you can access.' The scoping (own profile vs. an accessible client/member profile) is clear, but it never names or contrasts with the many sibling get_client_* tools (activity, liquidity, memory, tax_reserve), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives actor-specific context ('Advisors use active relationships, coaches follow managed-program defaults, and scoped admins can use debugAccess'), which implies usage but is not framed as when-to-use-this vs. an alternative. No explicit exclusions or sibling routing, so guidance is only implied.

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