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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the content detail (firmographics, ICP disposition, buying committee) which is useful but not critical. No extra behavioral context (e.g., pagination, caching) is disclosed, but with annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by a concise list of report contents. No wasted words, and the critical info (what the report includes) is placed early.

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?

Complexity is low (one parameter, no nested objects), and an output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers what the report contains, and annotations cover safety. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, with the single 'id' parameter described as 'The Account Intelligence report id.' The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch'), a precise resource ('one Account Intelligence report by id'), and enumerates the report's contents (firmographics, ICP disposition, buying committee). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like run_account_intelligence, which generates new reports, and get_icp, which targets ICP data alone.

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 clearly implies the use case: retrieve an existing report when you have its id. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the presence of siblings like run_account_intelligence and list_intelligence makes the distinction implicit. Lacks an explicit 'use this when' statement, hence 4 rather than 5.

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