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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses privacy defaults, the collapsed not_found response, retired-handle redirection, draft suppression, and 'Read-only. No auth required.' That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the return-shape enumeration is a long, dense run-on that is hard to parse. It earns its place because there is no output schema, but the packing into one block reduces readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full return-value burden and does so thoroughly, enumerating profile_v2, stats, log, activity, and follow blocks plus error semantics. Combined with annotations covering safety, nothing an agent needs to call correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'handle' parameter is fully documented in the schema with the same /m/<handle> example the description uses. The 'Args: { handle }' line adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource+scope: one Immersive Commons member's public profile by handle, delivered 'as data'. The '(public)' framing and the profile-vs-card distinction let an agent separate it from the sibling ic_member_card_get without opening either schema.

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?

Gives strong contextual guidance: the same profile_v2 block as the agent.json URL, drafts never surface, members are private by default, and unknown/private/hidden/retired handles all collapse to the same not_found so it is explicitly 'not a membership oracle'. It never routes to a named alternative such as ic_member_card_get, so it stops short of explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative.

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