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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful output details: it mentions provenance, corroboration, and an entity-level provenance block with average confidence and data freshness. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear expectation of the response structure.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then output details, then usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 query tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, use case, input, and output composition. However, it implies entity_type is required when the schema makes it optional, and it doesn't mention the async behavior that is part of the schema. These are minor gaps but do not undermine overall completeness.

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 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter info, just 'Input: an entity_id and its type,' which aligns with schema but doesn't explain the async parameter or provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already offers. The missing entity_type description is partially covered by its enum.

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 it returns an 'audience targeting profile of a content entity' and specifies that it reframes enrichment tags as audience facets with confidence, corroboration, and provenance. This is a specific verb+resource description that distinguishes it from sibling content tools like content_enrichment or content_provenance.

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 description includes an explicit 'When to use this tool' section targeting ad-tech or marketing agents needing a verifiable audience descriptor. It provides clear context but does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of the full 5.

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