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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds that this is a prerequisite read before asking questions, which is useful invocation-order context, but it does not disclose return format, length, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations and the name imply.

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 very short sentences, front-loaded with the key directive 'Start here.' Every sentence contributes to guiding use. Slight redundancy between 'what to ask and how to say it' and 'before you ask the person anything' keeps it from a 5.

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 simple, no-parameter, read-only guide retrieval with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: it says what the guide contains and mandates reading it before asking the person anything. It does not clarify the guide's exact scope or output form further, but the name and title fill that 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema is fully specified. Per the rule, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; the description appropriately does not need to explain parameter syntax.

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 what the guide provides ('what to ask and how to say it') and its role as a starting point, which distinguishes it from the CRUD siblings (get_profile, update_profile, delete_account, export_my_data). It does not explicitly say 'returns a profile guide,' but the name and title carry that, and the description's content is specific enough for selection.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Start here' and 'Read it before you ask the person anything.' No alternatives are named, but the sibling tools are unrelated account/profile operations, so no alternative routing is needed. No when-not condition is provided, keeping it from a 5.

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