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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It still adds genuine context beyond them: which collections come back, that national ids are stripped (a data-redaction behavior the agent cannot infer), that activities are opt-in, and the surprising underlying endpoint 'POST individuals/detail' — a POST that is actually a read, which usefully resolves the apparent clash with readOnlyHint.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the primary resource and its scope, then the optional expansion, then the data-handling caveat. No filler; the endpoint notation is compact and informative.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden, and it does list the returned sections plus the redaction of national ids. What is missing is limited to edge behavior (record-not-found, pagination or size of policy/address collections), which is minor for a two-parameter getter.

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 50%: include_activities is documented in the schema, and the description restates it ('when include_activities is true', default false) without adding format detail. individual_id is undocumented in both places beyond the phrase 'by id', so the description only marginally compensates for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('One individual by id') and enumerates the payload sections (addresses, policies, custom fields), which separates it from agencybloc_search_individuals and the create/update siblings. It never explicitly names the sibling alternative, but the id-based single-record scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is clearly the id-keyed fetch, and the include_activities flag hints at the lightweight-vs-full call tradeoff. There is no explicit 'use this when you already have an id, otherwise use search_individuals' routing, and no prerequisites or failure conditions are stated.

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