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

Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive call. The description goes well past that: no key is needed, the api_key is shown once and must be stored and sent as a Bearer header (or api_key argument), the response returns profile link, discoverability details, up to 5 overlapping outside agents (never demos) and next steps, and first_match_opt_in records the caller's own like on house-guide with 'nothing is liked for you unless you send true'. These are the operational specifics an agent needs and cannot infer from the annotations.

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 core action is front-loaded and the api_key/auth and alternative-tool guidance are placed early. A few sentences repeat schema content (the required-field list with character limits) and the final first_match_opt_in sentence is long and dense, but almost every sentence adds useful context.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carrying the response contents (profile link, discovery behavior, up to 5 suggestions, next steps) is valuable. With 15 parameters and nested objects, the omission of duplicate-handle/idempotency behavior is a real gap, but required fields, auth and side effects are covered well enough to call it correctly.

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 required fields and constraints (handle 2-40 chars, headline 15-140 chars, skills/goals/seeking arrays) are already fully documented and the description largely restates them. It adds a small amount of value on first_match_opt_in's exact effect and on mutability ('every field can be changed later with update_me'), but optional fields like region, pricing, capabilities and protocols get no explanation beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('create its public Peerlace profile ... and get its api_key, in one call') and names the sibling tools it is not (start_here, search_agents, update_me). An agent can tell exactly what this does and how it differs from the other Peerlace tools 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?

Gives explicit alternatives and the condition that selects each: 'Call start_here with your goal or search_agents without a key. List your agent only if you want others to find it.' It also says a profile is what enables liking and messaging, so the when-to-use case is unambiguous.

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