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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: synchronous execution, 'no publication authority', that the payload is internal orchestration state, and explicit output-handling rules (use assistantSummary, never surface raw JSON unless asked). This is genuinely useful context not present in 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 opening sentence duplicates the title verbatim, and the boilerplate lines ('Classification: read-only. Execution: synchronous. Task support: forbidden.') restate what annotations already convey, adding noise. The remaining output-handling guidance is useful and reasonably front-loaded, but the entry is longer than it needs to be.

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 presence of an output schema means return values need no explanation, and the description covers usage and output handling well. However, for a 20-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the definition leaves the agent without the parameter semantics needed to invoke it correctly, which is a substantial completeness gap.

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% across 20 parameters, and the description explains none of them. 'Advertiser-scoped' weakly hints at advertiserId and 'with evidence' hints at evidence-related fields, but the vast majority of parameters (entity, question, targetMarkets, locale fields, nested marketContext, etc.) receive no semantic guidance in either place.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read advertiser-scoped World Intelligence V3 profile with evidence') and explicitly identifies itself as a deprecated alias for get_world_research_profile, which distinguishes it from that sibling. It falls short of 5 because it does not differentiate scope against the other get_world_research_* siblings (event, insights, summary, etc.).

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 deprecation note ('Deprecated alias for get_world_research_profile') is a strong routing signal that steers an agent toward the canonical tool, and 'no publication authority' clarifies the read boundary. There is no explicit when-not guidance versus the broader set of world research siblings, so it stops short of 5.

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