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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds meaningful non-obvious context: hidden_facts exist and are not used for matching, and facts include ids/refs intended for edit_profile_card.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the read action and with zero filler. The second sentence adds targeted clarification about edit refs and hidden facts.

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?

With no input parameters, no output schema, and a simple read operation, the description covers enough for an agent to call it correctly. It could briefly say more about what the card/story/public page return, but the essential scope and edit linkage are present.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not discuss parameter behavior because none exist.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and three concrete resources: the human's card, the «О себе» story, and the public page. It also names the sibling edit_profile_card, making the read-vs-edit distinction explicit.

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 reading for profile facts and explicitly points to edit_profile_card for editing, since facts carry ids or refs for that tool. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the alternative routing is clear.

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