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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-redundant context: each fact carries a verification level and source, and profiles drawn from public sources are marked 'seeded' with facts to be treated as unconfirmed. It stops short of any error/auth/rate-limit behavior, so it lands just below the top.

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 dense sentences with zero filler: what is returned first, then when to call it, then the data-quality caveat last. Each sentence carries distinct, actionable information.

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 no output schema, the description steps in and characterizes the return payload (public facts, verification levels, sources, JSON-LD), plus the seeded/unconfirmed caveat. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing for a read-only lookup tool.

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% — both id and handle carry their own descriptions and examples — so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only gestures at the accepted identifier forms ('handle, profile address or id') without adding syntax beyond what the schema already documents.

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 — 'Get one person's SelfBadge profile' — and then enumerates the payload (public facts, verification level, source, schema.org JSON-LD), which separates it from the aggregate-oriented sibling get_organization and the discovery-oriented find_person.

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?

Names the routing condition explicitly: 'Use it after find_person, or when you already have a SelfBadge handle, profile address or id.' That gives the agent a concrete trigger plus the identifier prerequisites, with find_person named as the alternative entry point.

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