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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral context. It states the profile is public, implies a read-only operation through 'Get', and clarifies the data scope including score ranges and emissions split. It does not mention failure modes or authentication needs, but for a simple public profile read this is reasonable disclosure.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists what the profile contains, and ends with the actionable prerequisite. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The tool has only one required parameter and no output schema, but the description covers the major response fields and the prerequisite for obtaining the parameter. Some response shape details and error behavior are absent, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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 input schema already documents the single parameter fully, including that entity can be a slug or GUID and that the slug comes from search-entities. The description reinforces the slug workflow but adds little semantic value beyond the schema, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource as a company's public Mycelium profile, then enumerates the key contents: identity/registration, Mycelium Score, industry rank, Transparency Score, and emissions summary. This makes its purpose clear and distinguishes it from the sibling tools without needing to inspect schemas.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use search-entities first to find the slug, which is a clear usage precondition. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with get-emission-figures or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for basic routing.

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