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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the profile is public and listing the returned sections, which matters since there is no output schema. It says nothing about failure behavior for unknown slugs or about data freshness, which would round out the picture.

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 short sentences, the core purpose front-loaded and the parameter hint appended. No redundant wording and nothing that could be cut without losing 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the caller gets back and how to obtain the required input. Only error handling for a bad slug is missing, which is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does: slug is defined as the last segment of the URL found in search results. That removes real ambiguity about where the value comes from. It still doesn't state format constraints (allowed characters, whether the slug is case-sensitive).

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 specific verb and resource ('get the public profile of a craftsman or company') and enumerates the returned content (services, description, rating, recent reviews). It is clearly distinct from a search tool, though it never names the sibling it complements.

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?

It strongly implies sequencing by explaining that the slug comes from the URL in search results, which effectively points back to usta_ara. However, it never states explicitly when to call this versus the search tool, nor does it cover what to do with an invalid or missing slug.

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