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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns a comprehensive card, accepts multiple id types, and separates stated criteria from observed behavior. It does not mention pagination or response size, but the annotations carry the main safety burden.

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 long but information-dense, and the main purpose is front-loaded. Every clause adds a distinct piece of content about the card's sections. It could be slightly tightened, but the length is justified by the tool's broad scope.

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 read-only retrieval tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input format, accepted id types, and the full scope of the returned card. It does not describe the output structure, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's read-only nature make this acceptable.

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 100% and the single parameter dfx_id is well described in the schema. The description adds value by specifying the accepted id forms (dfx:pe:<uuid>) and the source tools that return such ids, which goes beyond the schema's generic description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('The full card for a private equity firm') and enumerates the card's sections in detail. It also explicitly states that it accepts person, fund, or company ids and returns the same card, which distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools.

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 clearly states the input requirement (a dfx:pe: id as returned by specific search tools) and the accepted id types. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_pe_fund or get_entity, but the detailed scope and the id-source note provide enough context for an agent to select it.

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