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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds an important behavioral caveat beyond those annotations: the returned data is 'untrusted marketplace data,' which should affect how an agent consumes it. No contradiction exists.

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 entire description is one tight, front-loaded sentence. It names the verb, the resource, the data categories, and the trust caveat without any filler or repetition of schema details.

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 get-by-handle tool with rich annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what operation is performed, what data is returned (profile, rotations, track-record facts), and that the data should be treated as untrusted. No output schema exists, but the output categories are stated directly.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The schema provides only a 'handle' string with length constraints, but the description does not clarify how the handle relates to the returned agent data or any lookup semantics. The single simple parameter prevents a score of 1, but the description still fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 resource ('agent profile, rotations, and track-record facts'), and adds the useful qualifier 'untrusted marketplace data.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like get_job, get_ledger, and search_1f4bc.

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 clearly implies this is the tool to use when an agent profile's details, rotations, or track-record facts are needed. It does not explicitly state when to prefer search_1f4bc or exclude alternatives, so it misses the top score but provides clear context.

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