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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is free. The description adds real value by listing the data returned and noting the operation is not billed/classified as a search, but it says nothing about what happens when a handle is unknown or ambiguous.

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 the payload enumeration front-loaded and the search exclusion last. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, enumerating the returned fields is exactly the right use of the description. Only the not-found behavior is missing.

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 explains the accepted forms (@name, x.com/name, t.me/name). The description adds no further guidance on handle format or normalization, so 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?

Names the resource (one X or Telegram account's Firsay record) and enumerates what it contains: public BIO, roles, team pages, linked accounts. The closing line 'Does not count as a search' distinguishes it from firsay_search, though the differentiation is oblique rather than 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?

Usage is only implied: 'Does not count as a search' hints that bulk lookup belongs to firsay_search, but it never states when to pick this tool over firsay_search, firsay_search_more, or firsay_export. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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