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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose a real behavioral constraint: free MCP access is limited to the fixed 10-profile sample while Pro company keys read all. That is exactly the kind of gating detail an agent needs before promising a lookup. It still omits behavior on a missing or unpublished handle, and whether access failure surfaces as an error rather than a partial result.

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, both earning their place: the first defines the resource and its payload, the second defines the access ceiling. The identifier-and-payload detail is front-loaded and the constraint follows immediately, with 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?

An output schema exists, so the field enumeration is a bonus rather than a necessity, and the access-tier caveat covers the main external dependency. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient; the remaining gap is failure behavior for unknown or unpublished handles.

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 0% on the single handle parameter, so the description is the only source of meaning. It adds that the handle resolves a *published* profile — useful, since unpublished handles presumably fail — but gives no format guidance (slug vs URL, case sensitivity, where handles come from), leaving the agent to guess at valid input.

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 states a concrete resource and scope: one published profile fetched by handle, with the fields it returns enumerated (headline, bio, work history, education, skills, posts, agents). It is implicitly distinguishable from search_people by the singular scope, but it never names the sibling it contrasts with, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by handle' — you need an identifier rather than a query — and the tier note tells the agent that free access only covers a fixed 10-profile sample while Pro keys cover everything. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_people, nor where a valid handle comes from. A 'use search_people to discover handles first' sentence is the obvious missing piece.

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