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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context ('$0 cost') plus the breadth of aggregation, but says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, or freshness/staleness of the intelligence.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then the coverage list, then the calling convention and cost. The long enumeration of coverage areas is dense but earns its place by signalling the report's breadth, though it could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure needn't be explained, and the description covers what data domains the report spans. Combined with the annotations it gives an agent enough to invoke correctly, with only the sibling-disambiguation gap remaining.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the slug and its example. The description's 'person slug (e.g. "john-smith")' merely repeats the schema, adding no new semantics — baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 ('Get a comprehensive cross-platform intelligence report for a person') and enumerates the coverage areas, which distinguishes it from company- or director-scoped siblings. However, it never names a sibling like get_director_detail or get_kyc_screening, so the boundary against those is inferred rather than stated.

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 description says how to call it ('Uses the person slug') but never states when to use this aggregate profile versus the narrower sibling tools such as get_director_detail, get_political_connections, or subscribe_people_alerts. No when-not conditions or alternatives are offered.

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