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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful disclosure about the payload — what is returned and, importantly, that phone, email and WhatsApp are NOT returned — but says nothing about failures (invalid id, unknown slug) or whether results are cached. Decent additive context, not rich.

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?

A single dense, front-loaded passage: identification of the resource first, then return contents, then the negative disclosure, then the hand-off to sibling tools. Every sentence carries weight and none is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating return fields and explicitly listing excluded PII, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether this call answers the user's question. Combined with the task-creation hand-off, nothing material is missing for a single-parameter read 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both the search-sourced id and the accepted ProSite slug fallback, so the description's restatement adds little. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema fully carries parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the full public profile of one Muovi professional') and immediately scopes the identity of the resource to an id sourced from muovi_search_professionals. Enumerating the returned fields makes it unambiguous against siblings like muovi_get_reviews.

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 tells the agent where the required id comes from (muovi_search_professionals) and gives a follow-on routing rule: to start a task, use muovi_create_task_link or muovi_create_task_draft with this id as professional_id. This is when-to-use plus what-to-use-next, nothing left to inference.

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