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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it requires credentials (Bearer token), always excludes contact details, and has no search/enumeration capability. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying authorization needs and data exclusions, though it does not mention error scenarios or exact response structure.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose and include only essential operational details (credentials, exclusions, limitations). Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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 the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description covers all necessary context: what is returned, what is not returned, how to authenticate, and the id-based access pattern. It is complete for this level of complexity.

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description ('Researcher (user) id'). The description reinforces 'by id' but does not add new semantic details such as format, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Get a researcher's public profile by id' and enumerates the exact contents (name, institution, research-interest summary, CV, conferences, journals). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on researchers vs conferences/journals/statistics, and there is no other researcher-specific tool.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use ('by id only') and when-not-to-use ('there is no researcher search or enumeration', 'Never includes contact details'). It also notes the credential requirement as a prerequisite. However, it does not name specific alternative tools, though no search/list researcher siblings exist, so the exclusion is effectively guidance.

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