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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description adds real value: it discloses that the response is a JSON:API { data } envelope, that it contains PII, and which relationships are embedded. It does not cover permission scoping or error behavior for a missing/invalid inquiry_id, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then return shape, then the underlying REST endpoint. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 read-only single-resource fetch with no output schema, the description covers the return payload shape, PII caveat, and included relationships. An agent has everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100% and the single inquiry_id parameter is documented with its format in the schema, so the description adds nothing beyond restating 'by id'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Get) and resource (a single identity-verification inquiry) plus the lookup key (by id), which cleanly separates it from the sibling persona_list_inquiries. It also names returned fields (status, template, relationships), so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 'by id' framing implies direct lookup when the identifier is known, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as persona_list_inquiries for discovery. The agent must infer routing entirely.

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