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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description clears it by disclosing staleness semantics — a `last_verified` far in the past means the copy is a snapshot, and the agent should consult the hosted endpoint before repeating the current role. That is actionable behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: what is returned, when to use it, and the staleness caveat. The payload enumeration is long but each item aids selection, and the operational warning is placed last where it belongs.

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 an output schema present, return-format detail is not required, yet the description still lists the facts for selection purposes. Zero params plus full annotation coverage means the only real gap would be staleness, which is explicitly addressed.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter-level detail is needed or missing.

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+resource ('Get the author's professional profile as structured facts') with an enumerated payload — name variants, current role, previous organisations, authored frameworks, citation, licence, verification date. No sibling tool covers attribution, so it is trivially distinguishable.

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?

Explicit trigger: 'Use this to attribute or cite anything this server returns.' That is a clear context for invocation. It stops short of naming when not to use it or pointing at an alternative, but no sibling overlaps this function.

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