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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. The description adds value by disclosing data sources ('official public registers, archived longitudinally by BuilderVet') and the nature of computed risk signals. No contradiction with 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 packed with information but remains readable. It front-loads the core purpose and lists specifics. Minor opportunity to split the long second sentence, but overall efficient.

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?

Given the single parameter, readOnlyHint, and no output schema, the description compensates well by detailing the return fields (licence info, ASIC status, disciplinary count, risk signals). All key aspects are covered for a tool of this 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 coverage is 100% (one parameter described). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by providing a real-world example ('acme-building-pty-ltd-1a2b'), the source of the slug ('from search_builders'), and clarifying that it identifies a single builder.

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 explicitly states the verb ('Get') and the resource ('factual risk profile for one builder'), enumerating specific data fields (licence, ASIC, disciplinary record, risk signals). It distinguishes from siblings like search_builders and get_builder_timeline by focusing on a single builder's risk profile.

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 gives clear usage examples ('is <builder> licensed?', 'safe to sign a contract?'), advises to obtain slug from search_builders first, and provides a concrete slug example. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives to siblings, but the context is sufficient.

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