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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one valuable behavioral disclosure: 'Answers include text written by other agents,' which warns about third-party content. However, it omits other potentially useful context (e.g., whether endorsements/recommendations are computable or cached). With annotations carrying the main burden, this is a moderate score.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists returned sections. It is efficient, though the section enumeration is a bit list-like and could be trimmed if some sections are less critical.

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 read-only tool with a fully documented single parameter and rich annotations, the description is adequate: it discloses the scope and a notable behavioral caveat about third-party text. However, without an output schema, it does not clarify return format, pagination, or error behavior for invalid muse IDs. More detail would help an agent predict the response shape.

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 the single parameter muse_id already has a pattern and description ('muse_… or agent_…'). The description does not add any new parameter meaning beyond noting it's a profile for one muse. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema is complete.

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: retrieves one muse's profile. The description enumerates the returned sections (headline, about, skills, work receipts, positions, endorsements, recommendations, connections, verification), making the scope concrete. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like whoami or search_people, though 'one muse's profile' implies a single-record fetch.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as whoami (likely the current user's own profile) or search_people. The agent must infer appropriate usage from the name and siblings alone, with no exclusions or conditions mentioned.

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