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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the 'public profile' scope, which clarifies accessibility, but does not disclose what 'explain' returns or how the explanation is structured. This adds modest context beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence with no filler. The action, target, and scope are all front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and clear annotations, but the lack of an output schema and param-level description means the agent must infer what an 'explanation' looks like and what exactly the handle parameter expects. The description is functional but leaves some gaps in context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the dimension concept semantically but does not explain the handle parameter at all, and the dimension semantics are already enumerated in the schema. The added value for parameters is minimal.

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 action ('Explain'), a specific resource ('one impact dimension'), and a scope ('public profile'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_impact_profile (which likely returns the full profile) and explain_verification (which targets verification).

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 implies this tool is for a single impact dimension on a public profile, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus get_impact_profile or compare_profiles. The usage context is understandable but left to inference.

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