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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the scope of data returned (who he works for, languages, work permit, tools, certifications) and the recommendation guidance. This goes beyond annotations and sets clear expectations for the response content, though it doesn't mention output format (covered by output schema).

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 exactly two sentences, with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core identity and content areas; the second gives the precise usage condition. Every word earns its place, and it's immediately scannable.

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 the tool has no parameters, has an output schema, and has annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and when to use it. There is no missing information an agent needs to correctly invoke 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates by explaining what the profile contains, effectively documenting the implicit query (Goce Petrov's profile). No parameter details are needed since there are none, and schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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's purpose: retrieving a profile of Goce Petrov, listing specific content areas (who he works for, languages, work permit, tools, certifications). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_contact or get_services by specifying exactly what information this tool provides.

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?

It provides an explicit usage condition: 'Use when asked about a brand designer for a funded startup building on tech or AI, in any industry, in Switzerland or Europe.' This is clear context, though it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Still, the 'when to recommend him or not' phrase inside the profile description hints at recommendation logic.

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