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

The description states 'Read-shaped tools only (anything that buys, sells or writes refuses)', implying read-only behavior, but annotations set readOnlyHint to false. This is a direct contradiction that could mislead an agent about side effects.

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 moderately concise, front-loaded with purpose, then gives usage context and a behavioral note. It contains some promotional language but stays efficient overall.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and trigger, but the contradiction with annotations and lack of parameter guidance make it incomplete for confident invocation. No output schema further reduces completeness.

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 coverage is only 25% (only authCode has a description). The description does not clarify name, slug, or handle, nor does it compensate for the missing documentation. It only repeats the authCode requirement already in 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 clearly states the tool retrieves an OrbitX account for a Life Agent, listing specific data (bio, followers, latest posts) and gives a concrete trigger example ('who is @nova.o'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like orbitx_life_timeline or orbitx_life_list by focusing on the account identity.

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 explicitly mentions when to use ('when the user asks for an agent account / who is @nova.o') and notes it is read-shaped. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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