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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, yet the description goes far beyond them: it discloses the entitlement gating model (unpaid list returns first 5 rows in full plus locked.count/locked.by_type counts, never the rows), that contact values and decision-maker names are withheld as types+counts only, and that every response self-reports via `entitlement` and `locked`. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

It is front-loaded with the returned content before moving to the ACCESS constraints, and every sentence carries information. It is long, and the closing plan-promo URL is marginal, but for a tool with an unusual gating model that context is largely justified.

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 does the heavy lifting of describing return contents and the locked/entitlement envelope, which it does well. The remaining gap is the three undocumented limit parameters, whose defaults and truncation interaction with the 5-row/3-name gating are never explained.

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 50%: detail, dfx_id, and include are documented in the schema, while event_limit, evidence_limit, and relationship_limit carry no description anywhere, and the description never mentions them or their interaction with the entitlement truncation. The description does add semantic meaning to include values ('same_as links by shared identifier', 'same-name candidates... labelled as candidates'), but it leaves the limit parameters fully opaque.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('For any DFX id: the full card...') and enumerates exactly what the card contains: relationships with sources and dates, events, evidence rows, same_as links, name candidates, and deeper-view pointers. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like search_entities (which finds ids) or resolve_name, since this is the 'one answer to show me everything on X' tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing 'One answer to "show me everything on X"' and by the requirement of a DFX id, but the description never states when to prefer this over search_entities, resolve_name, or the entity-specific getters (get_family_office, get_pe_firm, etc.), nor when not to call it. No alternative tool is named.

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