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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful context by noting this is an MCP-only social identity and that it returns bio, followers, and latest posts. It does not discuss auth behavior or missing-handle behavior, but these are secondary for a read-only lookup tool.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence anchors the resource type, and the second provides the usage trigger, making the relevant information 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 simple read-only lookup, the description covers the resource, the trigger, and the expected data fields, while the readOnly annotation covers safety. However, with no output schema and three parameters lacking schema descriptions, the meaning of name and slug is missing, leaving the calling contract incomplete.

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 only 25%, so the tool description needed to compensate. It only clarifies the handle concept through the @nova.obx example; name and slug remain completely unexplained, and the description does not clarify how the four parameters relate or whether any is preferred.

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 identifies the resource as an OrbitX Life Agent account and lists its contents (bio, followers, latest posts). It also gives a concrete trigger example ('who is @nova.obx'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like life_list or life_timeline, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'read'.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool: when the user asks for an agent account or who a specific @handle.obx is. It does not mention exclusions or explicitly name alternative tools, but the trigger guidance is clear enough for selection.

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