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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral nuance by explaining cost confidence ('vendor fact sheet wins when fresh') and enumerates the output components, giving the agent a sense of what to expect. It doesn't mention side effects (none expected for a read-only tool) but provides enough behavioral context for a non-destructive operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a usage note. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (listing all profile components) and the usage context. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it 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 schema already describes the single parameter (name) with 'Tool name (fuzzy-matched against catalog)', covering 100% of the parameter semantics. The description adds no further parameter-level detail beyond implying the tool operates on a single tool name, so the 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 clearly states the tool returns a full profile for a single tool, listing specific fields (cost, AI-readiness score, category, overlaps, registry status, partner link). It explicitly differentiates from search_tools by noting it provides more than name and cost, making its purpose 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?

The description explicitly states when to use it: 'Use when the user wants depth on one tool' and names the alternative (search_tools) with a clear contrast. This gives the agent a direct routing condition without ambiguity.

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