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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the response envelope (JSON:API { data }) and, importantly, that the payload contains PII, which is meaningful context for handling an identity-verification record. It stops short of noting auth scope or error behavior.

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 tight sentences: the resource identification and returned contents come first, followed by the response envelope and the underlying REST endpoint. No filler, and the key information is front-loaded.

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-value burden and does reasonably well, naming the {{ data }} envelope and key fields. A get-by-id tool with one documented param is nearly fully specified, though error/empty-case behavior is unstated.

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% and the single inquiry_id parameter is documented in the schema with an example. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 by id') and enumerates the returned contents (status, template, relationships). The word 'single' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling persona_list_inquiries without opening either 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?

Usage is implied by 'by id' – it is the fetch-one counterpart to the list tools – but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. No prerequisites or selection criteria are given.

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