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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specifics of what a public profile contains and its confirmation purpose, but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or any edge-case behavior. Given annotations, this is adequate but not rich; it adds some context without contradicting 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The main action and return details are front-loaded, followed by a clear usage directive. Every part 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?

The tool is simple (single required parameter), has a rich output schema, and annotations cover read-only behavior. The description tells the agent exactly what it returns and why to call it, which is sufficient for correct invocation. No critical missing information for this straightforward read operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes 'identifier' as 'the organization's public slug or id.' The description repeats this same information ('by its slug or id') without adding new meaning, such as format constraints, examples, or behavior when the identifier is invalid. It meets the baseline for full schema coverage but adds no extra value.

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 states a specific verb ('Look up'), a clear resource ('Soundcheck organization's public profile'), and enumerates the fields returned (name, description, genre, website, contact, social links). It also positions the tool against sibling actions like request_booking/request_sponsorship by mentioning the confirmation use case, making it distinct from get_place or search_places.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to confirm an org exists before submitting a booking or sponsorship request.' This gives clear contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the mention of booking/sponsorship implicitly distinguishes it from those actions.

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