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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, closed-world read. The description adds only the identity-resolution angle ("attached to your agent key"), with no mention of auth failure behavior, whether rotation of the key affects the answer, or what the profile contains.

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 short sentence with zero filler and the key concept front-loaded. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

For a trivial single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is that with no output schema, it never hints at what fields the returned profile contains or that the call fails with a bad/missing key.

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 there is only one optional parameter, whose schema text already explains the Authorization-header fallback. The description adds nothing about agent_key, so the 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 ("Show") and a specific resource ("the profile attached to your agent key"), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. However, it offers no differentiation from the sibling get_profile, which plausibly returns a profile too, leaving the boundary between the two tools unclear.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description never says when to call this instead of get_profile, nor does it explain the intended flow (e.g. call this first to identify the key's identity). Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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