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

readOnlyHint=true confirms it is a safe read, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: the weighted source ordering, the per-topic payload (source + reason), the required `sentence` field that must be shown to the user first, and the explicit low-data branch (say so plainly, ask once, never guess). With no output schema, this disclosure carries the full return-shape burden and does so.

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 purpose then usage, and every clause (weighting order, return fields, low-data branch) adds distinct information. It is a dense, dash-heavy paragraph rather than scannable structure, which slightly hurts readability but not information density.

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 zero-param, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, evidence weighting, return shape, the mandatory user-facing summary line, and the degenerate case. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 inference task ('work out what this user can speak to with authority') and enumerates the exact evidence sources it draws on in priority order (published, network, reading, profile). An agent can tell this apart from generic search/connection tools without opening the 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?

Explicitly directs the agent away from asking the user for keywords ('they should never have to type a search query') and prescribes the fallback path when enough_to_go_on is false. It does not name a specific sibling tool as the alternative, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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