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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the concrete fields returned and warning that only summary edge counts are included, not full graphs, which prevents unrealistic expectations. It also explains the resolver prerequisite without contradicting any annotations.

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: purpose first, then return fields, then explicit alternatives. Every sentence carries useful information with no 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?

There is no output schema, but the description lists the key return fields, notes parent/subsidiary references and edge counts, and warns about using a different tool for full graphs. Together with the parameter schema, the agent has enough to call the tool and interpret its result correctly.

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 documents the alias relationship and the required format 'org-<slug>'. The description reinforces "canonical Scrutica ID" and the need to resolve via search, but most parameter nuance is already present in the schema, so the description adds little beyond the baseline.

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 clearly states the verb and resource — "Fetch complete details for a single organization" by canonical Scrutica ID — and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming what to use instead for BIS details and full edge graphs. This lets an agent immediately recognize the tool's niche.

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 explicit routing guidance: use scrutica_query_export_controls for BIS designation details, and scrutica_get_supply_chain for full edge graphs. The parameter docs also instruct agents to resolve the ID via scrutica_search first and not to guess slugs, which is essential when to use and how to prepare.

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