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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the review list is capped at 8 and mirrors the profile page's first-page selection, and agency-supplied fields are frequently empty and should be read as 'unknown' rather than absent data. That nullability and truncation guidance is exactly what annotations cannot convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the invocation condition, then a dense but purposeful enumeration of what comes back. Every clause (review cap, MARN, empty-field caveat) carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers invocation context, payload shape, truncation, and null semantics. Nothing needed to call it correctly or interpret a sparse result is missing.

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 parameter's schema description already explains that the id comes from search_migration_agencies or find_registered_agent and is never a URL. The description's 'using its returned id' restates that without adding format or validation detail, 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 and resource — 'read one agency's public profile' — and situates it in the workflow ('after a search, using its returned id'), which separates it from the search/list siblings. An agent can tell immediately this is the single-record detail fetch rather than a query tool.

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?

Gives clear usage context: call it after a search and pass the id that search returned. It does not name an alternative or state when-not to use it (e.g. versus list_agency_locations for multi-location agencies), so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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