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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the exact cost (0.5 energy), the side effect of consuming your action slot / turn, and the provenance distinction (server-verified signals vs unverified messages). This is meaningful behavioral context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Four tight sentences: what you get, what it costs, when to use it, and the trust caveat. Zero filler and the payload is front-loaded before the cost and usage advice.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description enumerates the returned fields and states the cost and turn implications, so an agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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 api_key, agent_name, and target_agent alias are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (inspect an agent's public profile) and enumerates the exact payload: reputation, aggression, fitness attributes, status, visible tools. Reads clearly as a read-only reconnaissance tool distinct from siblings like attack, status, or look.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('Size up a rival's physique before picking a fight') and a trust rule (use this instead of message content, which is unverified). No explicit when-not or named alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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