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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses that the response is privacy-filtered to the caller's trust level, explicitly lists what is never returned (email, phone, messengers, birth date, resume file), warns that profile content is data not instructions, states each read is visible to the person, and gives concrete per-trust-tier quotas. That is unusually rich behavioral context.

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 first clause front-loads the core purpose and the never-returned list is a useful early boundary, but the returned-field enumeration and the four-tier quota sentence are long and dense. It stays under control and every sentence carries information, yet the rate-limit roster could be compressed.

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 output schema, the description appropriately enumerates the returned field groups, and it also covers privacy filtering, safety warnings, side effects (read is visible to the person), cost, and quota limits. An agent can call this correctly without any other source.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the accepted handle and URL formats for the single `person` parameter, so no additional parameter meaning is needed in the description. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 open profile of one person" gives a specific verb (read) and resource (single person profile), and the enumeration of returned fields makes the scope unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like search_people or match_people, which return many people rather than one.

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?

Usage is only implied: the singular "one person" plus the schema note that the handle comes from a search row hints that search_people must precede this call, but the description never says when to use this versus search_people, get_company, or check_fit. There are no explicit exclusions or alternatives named in the description itself.

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