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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral requirements: it warns against inferring stronger ownership, instructs exact preservation of qualifiers like led, owned_key_aspects, or contributed, and tells the agent to separate demonstrated experience from future directions. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and meaningfully shapes agent behavior.

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 provides a concise caveat, followed by tightly worded summarization rules and a sibling-tool pointer. Every sentence carries meaningful guidance without repetition or filler, so the length is justified.

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 that there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the profile contains, how to handle ownership qualifiers, how to treat mixed lists, how to separate experience from future directions, and where to look for current availability. No critical context 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing parameter-specific for the description to explain. Schema description coverage is 100%, and with zero parameters the baseline is 4; the description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get Alex Polonsky's curated public professional profile,' then enumerates content areas such as selected experience, demonstrated capabilities, journalism background, public projects, and future directions. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by pointing to get_availability for current opportunity status, so an agent can easily tell them apart.

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 explicitly routes the agent to the sibling tool: 'Use get_availability for current opportunity status.' It also sets expectations about the data being selected evidence rather than a complete CV, giving clear context on when this tool is appropriate and what it should not be used as.

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