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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to add genuinely useful behavior: the shape of the returned facts, the existence of a not_covered result state and what to do with it, and the obligation to preserve citation and 'Planned, not law yet' labels verbatim. That is real context beyond the annotations.

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 purpose before the constraint list, and each rule is short. The block of answer-formatting rules is long for a tool definition, but for a guardrail-heavy compliance read each rule carries its own weight, so it is dense rather than padded.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so adequately, naming the returned fields, the last-updated metadata, and the not_covered branch. Combined with annotations covering the read-only/idempotent profile, an agent has enough to call and interpret it.

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 no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 ('Shows the company facts the assistant has stored') and enumerates the returned fields (categories, markets, role, own-brand flag) plus their last-updated timestamps, so the agent knows exactly what this read returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings like what_changed or scope_check.

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 description gives extensive rules for how to phrase the ANSWER (citations, disclaimers, no personal duties, no vendor ranking), but nothing about when to choose get_profile over siblings such as scope_check, required_fields, or what_changed. Tool-selection guidance is absent.

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