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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the data is 'public' and lists return fields, implying a safe read operation. However, it does not mention potential errors, authentication needs, or any quirks such as missing profiles or data limitations.

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 sentences, immediately states the action and resource, and lists return fields with no redundancy or filler. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter get operation, the description covers the core purpose, return values, and public nature. It lacks details about slug format or how the return data might vary, but these are minor gaps given the low complexity and presence of sibling search tools.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'slug' with 0% description coverage, so the description must explain its meaning. The description mentions 'by slug' but does not define what a slug is, its format, or how to obtain a valid value. This falls short of compensating for the schema's lack of semantic detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the exact resource ('one public Root Data DSO directory profile'), and specifies the lookup method ('by slug'). It also lists the returned fields, making it distinct from sibling tools like 'get_practice_profile' and 'search_dsos'.

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 implies usage: when you have a slug and want a single public profile. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or offer alternatives like 'search_dsos' or 'compare_dsos'. The context is inferable but not explicit.

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