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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the field list, which the output schema already carries; it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior on unknown handles. This is adequate but not additive.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the resource and return contents front-loaded before the input note. Nothing is padded or repeated unnecessarily.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully covers parameters. The remaining gap is routing among similar lookup tools, which the description never addresses, but for a simple read it is otherwise sufficient.

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%, so the schema fully documents both actor and include. The description merely echoes the actor input format and never mentions the optional 'include' enrichments, so it adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get an account's repository overview') and enumerates the returned fields (handle, DID, PDS, collections), so the agent knows exactly what it yields. It does not differentiate from near-siblings like get_did_document, get_repo_status, or resolve, which a crowded sibling list makes valuable.

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?

'Input is a handle or DID' restates the actor parameter rather than saying when to choose this tool over get_did_document, resolve, or verify_handle. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing guidance is given despite many overlapping siblings.

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