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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds value by indicating this returns the 'Full public profile' (i.e., the complete record rather than a search snippet), but says nothing about pagination, errors, or auth.

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?

One front-loaded sentence naming the resource, lookup key, and returned fields with zero filler. Every clause carries information.

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 single-record read with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (bio, roles, coverage). Annotations cover the safety semantics, so nothing critical is missing, though it could note behavior for an unknown slug.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that the slug comes from the person's URL. The description repeats 'by slug' without adding format or lookup guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (get) plus resource and scope: a single person's 'Full public profile' looked up by slug. It is clear what is returned (bio, roles, coverage). It does not explicitly name search_people as the discovery alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by slug' signals you must already have a slug, which an agent can infer comes from search_people. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, so this is minimum-viable guidance.

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