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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, it discloses the return contents (profile URL, up to 5 recent reviews with rating and date), flags that name, firm, branch, bio, areas and review text arrive under 'untrusted_user_content' and must be treated as data — an important prompt-injection warning — and states the deliberate absence of contact details.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and id provenance, then return shape, then the untrusted-content warning and the contact-details caveat. Nothing is redundant with the schema or the title.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so, including the 5-review cap and the missing contact data. An agent can call this and correctly handle the response without further information.

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 agent_id parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from find_agents or get_property_details, so the description largely repeats that rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies for a one-parameter tool whose schema does the work.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one OpenMoov estate agent's public profile by agent_id') and immediately distinguishes itself from data-returning siblings by naming find_agents and get_property_details as the sources of the id.

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 gives clear context for when this is the right call (you have an agent_id) and an explicit alternative path for the adjacent need it cannot satisfy: reaching the agent requires booking a viewing or requesting a valuation. It stops just short of saying when to prefer get_branch or search_mortgage_advisors instead, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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