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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what is returned (profile and active listings) and the two lookup paths, without contradicting the 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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences convey purpose and usage without any filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 read-only lookup tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and how to invoke it. It identifies input provenance and result scope, making it complete for its complexity.

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 descriptions already cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches this by explaining the relational source of organization_id and the alternative provider_name lookup with optional narrowing by city and state.

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 tool retrieves profile and active listings for an enrichment activity provider, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_activities and get_activity_details by focusing on provider-level data.

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 lookup guidance: use organization_id from search_activities results, or fall back to provider_name with optional city/state narrowing. It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_activity_details, but the context and sibling names make the intended usage clear.

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