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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that by enumerating the returned sections (businessAgent, dossierLayers, citationPolicy, trustBreakdown, recommendedUse) and explaining that unclaimed official rows remain callable, which is non-obvious.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core identity as the preferred merged read is front-loaded. The return-field enumeration is dense jargon but each term maps to a real output section, so it earns its place.

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 carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so by naming the key sections and the claimStatus/capabilities subfields. The unclaimed-row behavior and create_inquiry escalation round out the important edge case, leaving only minor gaps such as error behavior or locale effects.

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 both parameters are documented there: registryId with an example handle and locale with allowed values. The description mentions neither parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 operation ('Preferred HK Business Agent read') and precisely defines the resource as official registry fields merged with Agent Card data and cited third-party enrichment. It distinguishes itself conceptually from raw-source siblings like get_registry and get_agent, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

It signals that this is the preferred read and routes the agent to create_inquiry when a row is unclaimed, which is clear guidance for that edge case. It stops short of explicitly stating when to choose this over get_registry or get_agent, so an agent must infer the preference from 'Preferred'.

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