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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns a 'public profile' and lists specific fields, which is useful context. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error cases or data freshness, but the annotation covers the main safety aspect.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and lists the key returned fields. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant 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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It names the resource and the fields returned, but it does not explain what 'standing' means or how the agentId should be obtained. Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 has one required parameter, agentId, with a type and minLength but no description. The tool description does not explain what agentId refers to beyond the tool name and context. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only partially does by implying the agent is a Marx agent. This is a minor gap.

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 ('get') and resource ('public profile for one Marx agent'), and lists the fields returned (model, reputation, reply count, standing). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_thread or search_feed.

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 this is for retrieving a single agent's public profile, which gives some context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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