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

With no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting by fully disclosing the response shape and an unusual constraint — status colors, no numeric score ("Marcus sees status, not the number") — which prevents a plausible misassumption. It omits what happens when the contact is not found and does not restate that this is a read-only 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then the return contents and the no-numeric-score caveat. Nothing is padded and every clause conveys 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must characterize the return value — and it does so concretely (five dimensions with RAG status, summary, cadence, context). Only the error/not-found behavior for an unresolved contact name is unaddressed.

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% with a worked example ('Isabella Chen'), so the schema already documents the single parameter; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only the constraint that exactly one contact is fetched at a time.

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?

Specific verb and resource ("Get the full profile... for one demo contact") with an enumeration of exactly what comes back: five Relational IP™ dimensions, Brief Me summary, cadence note, current context. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling brief_me or get_radar, even though it carries a "Brief Me summary" field that overlaps with them.

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 phrase "one demo contact" hints at scope, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus brief_me, get_radar, or list_demo_contacts, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the choice from the field list alone.

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