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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the JSON:API return envelope ({ data:[...], links }), the fact that returned objects contain PII, and the mapping of page_after/page_before to links.next/links.prev. It does not mention rate limits or default page size, keeping 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 tightly packed sentences ordered purpose → filters/pagination → return shape and endpoint. Nothing is redundant with the schema and nothing is wasted; the most decision-relevant facts come first.

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 correctly takes on the burden of describing the return envelope and the PII sensitivity, and it covers filtering and cursor pagination for all 9 optional parameters. An agent has everything needed to construct a correct call.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema — the baseline is 3. The description enumerates the same filter set and adds a modest framing (cursor follows links.next/links.prev), but contributes no syntax, format, or semantics beyond what the schema states.

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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('List identity-verification inquiries') and then defines the domain object in plain terms ('an end-user's KYC verification session'), which no sibling name conveys. It also anchors to the underlying REST operation (GET /inquiries), letting an agent distinguish it from persona_get_inquiry and the other list_* siblings.

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?

It names the optional filter dimensions and the pagination mechanism, which implies the intended usage pattern, but never states when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., persona_list_events or persona_get_inquiry) or any exclusions. Usage is inferred from the filter list rather than stated.

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