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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond the annotation by disclosing the breadth of returned data (groups, memberships, custom attributes), which is meaningful context for a read whose return shape is not defined by an output schema. No auth or rate-limit detail, but the entity scope is well conveyed.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the returned fields, followed by the API endpoint reference. No padding or redundancy; every clause 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?

For a simple one-arg read with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies enough: what it fetches, by what key, and what data comes back. Missing only explicit guidance on sourcing the id (e.g., via search) and error behavior for an unknown id.

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 single 'id' parameter is documented as an integer constituent id in the schema. The description's 'by LGL id' matches the schema without adding format, source, or lookup details beyond it, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Full details for one constituent by LGL id') and enumerates the returned entity scope (names, salutations, addresses, phones, emails, groups, memberships, custom attributes). This clearly contrasts with the sibling search_constituents by implying a single-record lookup, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 implied by 'one constituent by LGL id' – the agent infers this is a single-record fetch rather than a bulk or search operation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no note that the id must first be obtained via search_constituents, and no exclusions.

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