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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: the compliance-first focus, the breadth of included data sections, freshness information, and the fact that it recommends next tools. No contradictions 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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second lists the return contents, and the third gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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 complex dossier tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists the major result categories (inspections, citations, warning letters, import refusals, recalls, etc.) and the intended use case. It could explicitly mention that evidence_limit applies per section, but that is already documented in the schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand what it will receive.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (fei and evidence_limit) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's function as a compliance-first facility dossier keyed by FEI number, and enumerates the specific contents (inspections, citations, warning letters, import history, recall context, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from the 'broader product-focused facility profile', making it easy to differentiate from sibling tools.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('when you want the fastest FEI-level manufacturing risk view') and contrasts it with the alternative ('instead of the broader product-focused facility profile'). However, it does not name a specific sibling tool, so it falls short of fully explicit alternative naming.

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