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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: data provenance (official public registers, archived longitudinally by BuilderVet) and an explicit limitation statement. This gives the agent a clear picture of what the facts represent and what they do not establish.

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 dense yet well-structured: action first, followed by returned content, provenance, usage guidance, limitations, and an example. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names all returned data categories, explains the data source, gives an example, and clearly states limitations. An agent can confidently invoke the tool and interpret the result without additional documentation.

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% and already documents slug with an example and its source ('Builder slug from search_builders'). The description reinforces this with a second example and clarifies 'one builder by slug', but adds little semantic value beyond 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get the factual risk profile for one builder by slug') and enumerates precise data points (NSW licence class/status, ACN/ABN, ASIC status, event count, source flags). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_builder_timeline and search_builders by listing exactly what it returns.

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 provides explicit use context ('Use for identity and dated evidence') and exclusions ('does not establish safety, financial health or complete coverage'), and instructs to obtain the slug from search_builders first. It does not explicitly name get_builder_timeline as the alternative for chronological events, but the parenthetical 'not disciplinary finding count' partially signals the boundary.

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