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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function well but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's incomplete for a tool that likely queries external services.

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?

The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the core purpose and one listing use cases. It's front-loaded with the main function and avoids unnecessary elaboration. The bullet-style use cases are efficient, though slightly unconventional in flow.

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 tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the purpose and use cases well but lacks behavioral details (rate limits, permissions, response format) that would be helpful given the tool likely queries multiple external platforms. The absence of output schema increases the need for return value explanation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds context about what the parameters represent ('platform identity', 'cross-platform connections'), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('retrieves', 'discover', 'finding', 'resolving') and resources ('related identities', 'cross-platform connections', 'accounts', 'domain names'). It distinguishes the tool's function by explaining it finds connections across multiple platforms for the same person/entity, which is specific and actionable.

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 provides explicit use cases (finding accounts across platforms, resolving domains to addresses) that clarify when to use this tool. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or alternatives, and with no sibling tools, differentiation isn't needed. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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