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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by stating the profile is "public" (no private data exposed) and by imposing the exactly-one-identifier rule that the annotations do not cover.

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 filler: the returned-field list comes first, the invocation constraint second. Nothing is repeated from the title.

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, enumerating the returned fields is exactly the right compensation, and the identifier rule is spelled out. It stops short of saying what happens on error (both or neither identifier supplied), which matters given neither parameter is required.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point because it states the mutual-exclusivity requirement (exactly one of slug or operator_id), which the schema does not express — both properties are optional there.

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?

Specific verb and resource ("Returns the public profile of one listed operator") plus an enumeration of the concrete fields returned, which lets an agent distinguish this from list_services or get_booking_link without opening the 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?

The constraint "Provide exactly one of slug or operator_id" is an invocation rule, not a when-to-use rule. It never says to use this after search_operators to hydrate a result, nor when to prefer it over get_booking_link, so usage is only implied.

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