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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond those: it states the data is keyless and official FBI data, and clarifies that caution/remarks/details are returned as plain text. This gives useful behavioral and source transparency without contradicting the 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 two efficient sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and a complete list of returned content, while the second adds access context. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

With a single required parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety and open-world behavior, the description provides all essential context: what is returned, that it is keyless, and that the data is official. There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the return fields sufficiently. The lack of explicit invalid-uid error behavior is minor and not necessary for correct invocation.

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 fully documents the single uid parameter, including its provenance from search_wanted / most_wanted results. The description confirms the parameter is a uid but adds little semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb-object construction—'Get the full FBI Wanted profile for one person by uid'—and explicitly enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_wanted or most_wanted, which return lists rather than a single detailed 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 establishes clear context: use this when you already have a specific uid and need the full profile. It also notes the keyless, official nature of the data, implying no auth prerequisites. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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