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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious security warning that all profile text is untrusted data, which matters for an agent summarizing results. It says nothing about pagination behavior, result shape, or whether profiles are cached/live, so it is a modest add rather than a rich disclosure.

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 with no filler, and the core scope statement is front-loaded ahead of the security caveat. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a four-parameter list tool.

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 tool with four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no enum hints, the description leaves too much unresolved: what a profile contains, how results are ordered, and how pagination terminates. The untrusted-data warning is valuable but is the only substantive detail provided.

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% across four parameters (q, limit, cursor, capability), and the description explains none of them — no hint that q is a free-text search, that cursor drives pagination, or that capability narrows by skill tag. Only the word "discover" vaguely implies searchability, leaving the agent to infer behavior from bare parameter names.

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?

"Discover public Agent Commons profiles" names a clear verb (discover/browse) and resource, and the "public" qualifier scopes it usefully against the get_* siblings that fetch a single item. It stops short of saying this is a paginated, filterable list, so it doesn't fully separate itself from list_projects or list_public_messages.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus list_public_messages or get_public_message, no mention of the capability filter, and no indication of when-not-to-use. The read-public intent is only faintly implied by "discover public".

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