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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true/destructiveHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses a privacy suppression path (an org that opted out returns only name plus note), partial-section behavior, an `unavailable` marker for unreadable sources, and a prompt-injection warning about `untrusted_fields`. That is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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-loaded with the overall payload scope, then cleanly segmented by 'Never included:', `unavailable`, and `untrusted_fields` clauses. It is long, but the length is justified by the breadth of returned content; a reader can stop after the first clause and still know what the tool is.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return structure needn't be spelled out), the description still covers the edge behaviors an agent must anticipate: suppressed records, missing sections, unreadable sources, and untrusted text fields. Nothing needed to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 org_id schema already spells out the EIN and SCHEME-VALUE formats. The description's two example calls restate those same accepted formats rather than adding new syntax or constraints, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting and 3 is the appropriate baseline.

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 (get) and resource (one organization's full profile) and enumerates the exact content domains returned, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like get_990_summary or get_funder_profile without opening the schema. The 'Everything Kindora holds about one nonprofit, NGO or social enterprise' framing makes the scope unambiguous.

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?

Gives clear context ('for a funder researching it'), which is the working condition that selects this tool. It does not, however, name alternatives or exclusions — it never says to use search_organizations first to obtain the org_id or why to prefer this over get_990_summary for a narrow 990 lookup, leaving routing to inference.

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