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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, but the description adds non-obvious behavioral caveats: IDs identify registrant relationships rather than verified corporate identity, typed rows preserve every audit filing, and cursors must be collected before interpreting separate income/expense ledgers. These are real behavioral disclosures beyond the structured fields, though pagination and response-size behavior are only in the schema.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core workflow in the first sentence and refinements (cursors, filing UUID handoff, canvas SQL) after. It is jargon-heavy but each sentence carries information; minor tightening could improve it.

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 13-parameter, two-mode tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the workflow, the ID caveat, cursor handling, and the handoff to search_filings. Return-value details are delegated to the output schema appropriately; only minor gaps (e.g., canvas staging details) remain.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it clarifies that candidates[].id should be selected while the secondary client_id is preserved as source data, and explains the resolve/profile mode split. That goes beyond restating schema field descriptions.

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 verb and resource ('Resolve client relationship records by client_name') and clearly delineates the two modes (resolve vs profile). It names one downstream sibling (uslobbying_search_filings) but does not distinguish itself from the other search_* siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 gives an explicit two-step workflow (resolve by client_name first, then profile with explicit client_ids and years) and tells the agent to follow collecting cursors before interpreting ledgers. It routes the agent to uslobbying_search_filings for complete filing records, though it does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool versus the other sibling searches.

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