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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful context: each trait carries its own statistical measure (median, mean, model, distribution, most frequent) and its own data period, warning the agent that the figures are not on a single common vintage. It does not discuss caching or refresh cadence.

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 front-loaded sentence identifies the resource first, then packs the trait list efficiently into a compact enumeration with source attributions. It is dense but every clause carries information; a short usage sentence would have been a better use of space than a few of the source parentheticals.

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 zero parameters, a full output schema, and complete annotations, the description only needs to convey what the aggregate contains and how heterogeneous it is — and it does both, including per-trait measures and data periods. The remaining gap is routing: an agent still cannot tell from this text when the composite beats the granular sibling tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no input semantics to explain. The description correctly implies a single fixed, unfiltered snapshot, consistent with the empty schema.

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 names a concrete, specific resource — a composite 'profile of the typical person in Poland' — and enumerates exactly which traits it aggregates (median age, wages, flat price per m2, mortgage, pension, spending, car age/brand) with their sources. It is clearly distinguishable from single-indicator siblings like get_pension_stats or get_housing_prices, though it never explicitly says so.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent to prefer this composite snapshot over the many granular siblings (get_rents, get_retail_prices, get_vehicle_registrations) or vice versa. Usage is only inferable from the enumerated contents, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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