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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description then adds real value beyond that: a per-result pricing model ($0.005/request + $0.0002/record, tiered past 100, $0.50 cap), plan eligibility (Understanding/Influence), a migration note (analysis parts moved 2026-09-01), and a pre-call estimate endpoint. Cost and plan gating are behavioral facts an agent should know before invoking.

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 purpose is correctly front-loaded in one strong sentence. However, the remaining bulk is billing logistics, including a dated migration note (2026-09-01) that is unaffected by the agent's call decision and reads like changelog spillover into a tool description. Useful but not tightly trimmed.

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 burden and does so reasonably: identity, population, full member roster, Kin Score, agent readiness. Combined with cost modeling it gives an agent enough to decide and budget. It omits pagination/result-size behavior, which is the main residual gap for a roster-returning tool.

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%, and the enum for `kind` plus the relationship between `kind` and `slug` are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (it never mentions kind, slug, or context), so this sits at the baseline for a fully-documented schema.

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 opening sentence names a specific resource (one cohort) and enumerates its contents — identity, population, and member roster with Kin Score and agent readiness. It also implicitly carves out the analysis siblings (stats/rankings/scores/capabilities) as separate tools, though it never names the sibling tools themselves, so differentiation is suggestive rather than explicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_tag, get_industry, compare_cohorts, or the cohort_* analysis tools. The only actionable instruction is 'Estimate first at /api/v1/prices/estimate', which is a cost-workflow tip, not selection guidance. An agent must infer the use case from the return contents alone.

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