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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description's "Side effects: none; read only" merely restates that. The one genuine addition beyond structured fields is the prompt-injection warning that web-sourced text is quoted data, never instructions — valuable, but the description still says nothing about whether the question is consumed/advanced on retrieval or how it relates to scan state.

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?

Purpose and the enumerated choices are front-loaded, which is the right ordering for this triage tool. The parenthetical definitions of the three choices make the opening sentence long and nested, but each sentence still carries distinct information.

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 responsibly sketches the return shape (evidence plus choices) and adds a safety note about untrusted web content. It does not explain what happens when no questions remain or how questions are sequenced, which is the main remaining gap for a 'next item' tool.

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 single entity_id parameter already documents type, format, default resolution (person, else company) and an example. The description adds no scoping or semantics beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific resource (the next question the scan cannot answer alone) plus the exact shape of what comes back: evidence and a three-way choice set (mine / about_me / not_me). An agent can distinguish this read/triage tool from answer_question or get_gaps 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?

Gives an explicit usage window ("when the scan is done and results need sorting") and an explicit exclusion ("Do not use for changing the profile"). It stops short of naming answer_question as the follow-up tool for submitting a choice, leaving that to inference.

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