landis_nsi_profile_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the verb 'Get' is consistent with those, so there is no contradiction. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as rate limits, prerequisites, or return caveats, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden on the description.

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?

A single ten-word sentence with no filler. It front-loads the operation and resource before the qualifying identifier, making the purpose immediately scannable.

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 simple read-only, idempotent lookup with an output schema and one required parameter, the description gives enough to call it correctly. The main gaps are the absence of sibling routing and the opaque phrase 'evidence summary', but those are secondary to successful invocation.

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 has two parameters with no property descriptions, so the description carries some burden. It provides domain context for nsiId ('LandIS NSI site identifier') and implies a single integer ID, matching the schema minimum of 1; the const 'tool' parameter is not addressed, but its value is fixed and inferable from the 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 uses the verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('evidence summary') and a precise selector ('one LandIS NSI site identifier'), so an agent knows this is an exact-ID lookup rather than a spatial or nearest-site search. It could be sharper by explaining what an 'evidence summary' contains, but it is not tautological or misleading.

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?

No guidance explains when to choose this tool over landis_nsi_nearest_sites or landis_nsi_within_area. The phrase 'one ... site identifier' implies the caller should already have an nsiId, but no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions are stated.

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