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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it is access-scoped to self or an accessible client/member, and explicitly notes that scoped specialists are excluded unless a future permission grants the surface. Return format is not described, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The returned contents are front-loaded, followed by the access scope and the exclusion caveat.

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 must carry the return surface, and it does list the artifacts returned. Combined with rich read-only annotations and a fully documented single parameter, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only finer output detail is absent.

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 coverage is 100% and the single clientId parameter is documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the parameter optionally targets a client/member 'you can access' while omitting it yields your own context, which the schema does not state.

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 (Get) and resource (family office context) and enumerates the concrete contents it returns: constitution, crest, mission, mode-of-operation, meeting playbook. This clearly separates it from the adjacent graph/context siblings such as get_business_entity_graph_context and get_professional_graph_context.

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 gives scope ('for yourself or a client/member you can access') and an access caveat about scoped specialists, which implies when it is callable. However, it never names an alternative tool or states a when-not condition, so usage is only implied.

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