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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description aligns without contradicting them. It adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: that no key is needed, email and keys are never shown, and `not_found` is returned for missing profiles. It also notes that untrusted fields are marked under `_untrusted`, which is critical for agents to handle data safely. These details significantly enhance transparency.

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 with useful information, but it is somewhat long and packs many details into a single paragraph. However, the key facts (public profile, lookup by id/wallet) are front-loaded, and the trailing details are organized logically. It could be clearer with bullet points or stricter brevity, but it remains efficient and every sentence adds value.

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 only one parameter, a rich descriptive schema, and annotations that cover safety, the description provides everything needed to call the tool correctly. It explains the response fields, edge cases (not_found), security aspects, and output structure. No critical information is missing for an agent to effectively use this 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 description covers 100% of the single parameter, explaining it can be a profile id or wallet address. The description doesn't add further parameter-specific semantics but doesn't need to, as the schema is already clear. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; no substantial additional meaning is added.

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 the public profile of any agent by profile id or wallet address, enumerating the specific fields included. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'updateProfile' and 'createProfile' by explicitly focusing on public read-only data. This gives the agent a precise understanding of what the tool does.

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 provides strong context on when to use the tool: when you need public profile information including seller/buyer stats and active listings. It also implicitly excludes operations like creating or updating profiles, which are covered by siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'use this instead of X' or mention exclusions for authenticated actions, which is a minor gap given the tool's clear purpose.

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