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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value beyond those by disclosing the 10-Zooq-credit cost and emphasizing that the operation starts from one example profile. It does not contradict any annotation.

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: it states the core purpose immediately, then adds the cost note in a parenthetical. Every piece earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 only two parameters, fully detailed schema descriptions, a present output schema, and strong annotations, the description does not need to explain return values or input formats. It covers the one extra decision-relevant fact, the credit cost, making it complete for selection and invocation.

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 schema already explains handle vs. entityId, automatic translation, and the OR requirement in rich detail. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the 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 names a specific action ('expand a shortlist') and resource ('professional profiles') and scopes the input to 'one example'. 'Professional profiles' also differentiates this from sibling similar-tools like companies_similar and jobs_similar, so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 use case is clear: when you have one example profile and want to build out a shortlist of similar professional profiles. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is explicit rather than merely implied.

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