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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is established. The description adds that it returns a 'full profile' with specific sections, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether profile data is aggregated from external sources or if portfolio images are included, though for a read-only profile tool this gap is acceptable.

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 tool's purpose and content, then a clear usage directive. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and clear schema documentation, the description covers what the tool does and when to use it. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the return format, but the description lists the profile sections which implies the structure.

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 input schema documents the id parameter thoroughly, including its nature as a slug, stability, source, and URL usage. The description doesn't repeat this but complements by indicating the id comes from search_muralists. With one well-documented parameter, the baseline is elevated.

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 clearly states the tool gets a full profile of a specific muralist, enumerating the content (bio, styles, portfolio, project types, quote request). It distinguishes itself from the sibling search_muralists by specifying 'a specific muralist' and directing use 'after search_muralists'.

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?

Explicitly says to use after search_muralists to get details on a candidate. This gives clear sequencing guidance and differentiates from the search alternative.

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