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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the return envelope (JSON:API { data }) and, importantly, that the payload contains PII, which affects how the agent should handle and surface results. No auth or rate-limit notes, hence not 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?

One tight sentence with the action front-loaded, followed by a brief clarifier on the resource type and a return/endpoint note. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter read with readOnlyHint already set, the description covers purpose, resource semantics, return envelope, and the PII sensitivity — enough to call it correctly. Only minor gaps (no error/not-found behavior) keep it from a 5.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage (including the 'report_...' format hint), the schema carries the semantics. The description adds only 'by id', so the baseline of 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 (get) and resource (a single report by id), and clarifies what a report actually is — a screening/monitoring result covering watchlist, adverse-media, and business lookup. The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling persona_list_reports.

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: call it when you already have a report_id and want one report. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. persona_list_reports for discovery), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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