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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it warns that profile_text_untrusted is quoted third-party content and must not be followed as instructions, which annotations cannot express. It doesn't mention failure behavior for an unknown slug, keeping it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the subject and scope, then the safety warning. The field enumeration is dense but each item is informative. Slightly heavy in one sentence, but nothing extraneous.

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 return values need not be explained, yet the description previews the important blocks including the untrusted one, which is the main behavioral risk. Combined with read-only annotations and a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by noting the '(requested language)' qualifier applies to the untrusted block's bio, fees and FAQs, clarifying that lang affects that content rather than the whole record.

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: 'Public profile of one professional by slug'. It also names the fields returned, which distinguishes it from a search/list tool, and points at search_professionals as the source of the slug. The only thing missing is an explicit statement that it is the detail-view counterpart to that sibling.

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?

'by slug (from search_professionals)' tells the agent the prerequisite call and when this tool applies. There is no explicit when-not or alternative routing (e.g. use get_availability or request_booking instead for scheduling), so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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