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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is 'clean markdown' and that the profile is returned 'in full,' which gives some behavioral insight, but it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or what 'full' entails beyond that.

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 description is a single sentence of 12 words, front-loading the action, resource, and output format. Every word contributes, with no filler.

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 without an output schema, the description tells the agent it will receive a full profile as clean markdown, which is sufficient. It could be slightly more explicit about error cases or the exact content of 'full,' but overall it's adequate.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the handle parameter with an example. The description mentions 'by handle' but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'a single candidate profile in full as clean markdown, by handle.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search or search_talent, which broadly retrieve candidate data.

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?

The description implies usage when a complete profile is needed for a known handle, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like fetch or search, nor does it mention exclusions.

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