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

The description adds detail beyond the annotations by mentioning caching behavior ('Repeat profiles are served from a shared cache'), which is not present in the cached hints. It also outlines the types of data included ('social accounts', 'work history', etc.) and states what content is off-limits ('never private accounts or breach data'), providing a clear ethical boundary beyond what the readOnlyHint suggests.

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 concise yet comprehensive. It front-loads the core value proposition and distributes context across just two well-utilized sentences before getting to usage instructions. Every word is purposeful, whether defining scope, providing examples, or setting boundaries.

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?

Considering the tool's complexity and its small parameter set, the description effectively communicates the tool's role as a comprehensive alternative to search, and given the existence of a schema that defines the parameters, it doesn't need to list them in the tool description. The guidance on caching and suitable alternatives like 'ask_about_person' provides a complete understanding of when and how to use the tool.

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 schema provides descriptions for all 4 parameters, meeting the 100% coverage benchmark. While the description mentions the 'name' and the 'headline or username' parameters, it doesn't add extra semantic detail that the schema misses; it primarily reinforces what is already outlined 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?

Uses specific verbs like 'assemble' and 'build' to describe what the tool does, combined with a detailed resource ('one person's entire public footprint'). It clarifies the scope and distinguishes itself by specifying the cross-platform correlation of public data, setting it apart from sibling tools like search_people or ask_about_person.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this instead of 'reading search results yourself' and names an alternative, 'search_people'. It also provides precise input instructions on passing the 'headline or username from search_people', which is clear guidance for using the tool correctly.

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