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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the exact return envelope: the choice_profile, freshness timestamp, and a separate disclosed promotion label (null if not promoted). This helps the agent anticipate output format and null behavior. 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 relatively short but contains redundant return information (the first sentence already lists the return items, and the 'Returns:' sentence repeats them nearly verbatim). The example is inaccurate and unnecessary. While not bloated, not every sentence earns its place, and the poor example hurts clarity.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return values well. However, the contradictory example and redundant return description introduce potential for misuse, preventing it from being fully complete. The core information is present, but the flaw lowers it below an ideal 4.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description for tenant_id, so baseline is 3. However, the description's example says 'call federation_choice_get with arguments {}' which directly contradicts the required tenant_id. This misleading example could cause the agent to omit the mandatory parameter, and the description adds no useful semantic beyond the schema. The presence of incorrect guidance warrants a score lower than baseline.

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 the specific verb 'Fetch' with a clear resource ('one tenant's full choice_profile'), details the contents (organic comparable facts, per-vertical attributes), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool federation_choice_compare by referencing that compare narrows to a single tenant. This unambiguously states what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use after federation_choice_compare has narrowed to a single tenant, giving a concrete when-to-use context. It doesn't list exclusions or alternatives beyond federation_choice_compare, but the guidance is sufficiently clear for an AI agent.

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