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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds provenance context: official data merged with claimed Agent Card data and cited third-party enrichment, plus a warning that reviews are auxiliary and not scraped from the open web. It also says the output includes citationPolicy and trustBreakdown, which is behavioral info beyond safety flags.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the core message ('Preferred HK registry read') and each clause adds value—data provenance, output fields, safety purpose, and a review caveat. No filler or repetition of schema/annotations.

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 tool with only one required parameter and rich annotations, the description covers what the merged profile contains, why it is trustworthy, and a data-source caveat. It is complete enough to select and call correctly alongside the listed siblings.

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%, so the schema fully documents registryId as a public handle and locale as a language code. The description doesn't add parameter-level meaning beyond implying the HK registry context, so a baseline 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 states a specific composite-read purpose: official HK registry fields merged with claimed Agent Card data and cited third-party enrichment, and names key output fields (dossierLayers, citationPolicy, trustBreakdown, recommendedUse). The phrase 'Preferred HK registry read' signals how it relates to sibling registry tools, so an agent can distinguish it from get_agent/get_registry without opening schemas.

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 marks the tool as the 'Preferred HK registry read' and explains it exists to tell agents what is safe to cite, giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternatives like get_agent/get_registry, but the 'Preferred' flag and the merge of data sources imply the decision.

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