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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses important behavior: facts are grouped into three separate grade lists, subject-stated facts carry no status, disputed facts are returned marked Disputed without a reason, and facts from registries or the open web carry statuses. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 dense and detailed, which is appropriate for a tool with no output schema. However, it repeats the point about three separate lists and the 'statement, not confirmation' distinction, so it is slightly less concise than it could 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is highly complete: it explains the URL, the returned structure, status semantics, grading, edge cases like disputed facts, and rate-limit context. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by showing URL patterns for person and organization records and clarifying that handle is the last part of the page URL, which goes beyond the schema's simple property descriptions.

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 action (get the record), a specific resource (a person or organization by handle), and the exact public-page semantics. It also distinguishes itself from likely siblings like find_subject by focusing on a single published record addressed by handle and kind.

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 positions this as the no-key lookup tier and mentions rate limits and the existence of keyed partner access, which tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for selecting them, but it gives enough context for correct placement.

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