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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds significant extra context beyond those hints. It discloses that the edge is labeled unverified, that public access works without a key, that owner-only data exists, and that every stat has a definition — all useful beyond the annotation flags.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the core purpose, then details the contained stats, access behavior, and owner-only caveat. It is well-organized and appropriately sized for a profile tool with many distinct components.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the necessary context: public access, key ownership visibility, unverified edge, ranking floor, and owner-specific data. Nothing needed to correctly call the tool is missing.

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 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explaining the participant id formats (user:... or key:...) and where to find such ids. This provenance is helpful context beyond the schema itself.

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 tool as returning a participant's public, evidence-only record by participant id, listing the exact metrics included. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to distinguish itself, but the participant-by-id scope and mention of ids appearing on market_board/listings make the purpose clear.

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 gives practical usage context: ids come from market_board rows or listing poster/provider fields, and the read works without a key. It does not explicitly state when to use an alternative like market_me, but it does clarify the key-ownership restriction on volumes and balances, which is valuable guidance.

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