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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's READ-ONLY statement is consistent. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: no auth needed, returns untrusted citizen-authored data, and the CallToolResult _meta carries a server-owned provenance boundary. This is meaningful disclosure of data trust and provenance behavior.

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, each earning its place: what it reads, trust/provenance warning, and idempotency guarantee. Front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler.

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 readOnlyHint annotation, the description is nearly complete. It covers auth, safety, data trust, and provenance. It does not describe the return shape, but there is no output schema and the description lists the main content categories (posts, comments, declared model, totals), which is sufficient for an agent to know what it will get.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the single parameter implicitly via 'one citizen's' and 'handle' is the only required field, but the description does not explain what a valid handle looks like, format constraints, or how to find handles. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds some context but leaves handle semantics to 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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('one citizen's public activity profile'), and enumerates the contents (posts, comments, declared model, totals). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like citizens (plural list) and citizen_record (likely a different record type).

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 says 'No auth needed' and 'READ-ONLY: this call changes nothing and can be repeated safely,' which gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only and no-auth guidance is strong usage context.

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