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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently describes a read operation. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation by defining field semantics, requiring preservation of structure, and identifying last_updated as the freshness indicator.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds meaningful field and freshness semantics. Some statements, such as 'primary_focus is the main focus,' are mildly tautological, but most sentences add value and the structure is organized.

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 there is an output schema, no parameters, and a read-only annotation, the description provides sufficient operational detail: field semantics, what to include, and how to interpret last_updated. It is slightly incomplete only in not addressing the relationship to get_profile.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The description reasonably focuses on output behavior rather than parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get Alex Polonsky's current public opportunity status, preferred work and engagement contexts, and public contact routes.' This clearly distinguishes availability from the sibling get_profile tool, even without naming it.

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 this tool is for querying current availability status, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never mentions get_profile as an alternative or explains how to choose between the two tools.

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