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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return-shape context that annotations cannot supply: the record contains the same fields as search results plus a full overview, which is meaningful given no output schema 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Both clauses earn their place: one establishes identity/scope, the other establishes return content.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations, the main remaining gap is the return shape, which the description partially covers by relating it to search fields plus an overview. Missing are failure behavior (unknown id) and any note on field expansion, but nothing critical to calling it correctly is absent.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it explains that profile_id is an identifier obtained from search output. That addresses provenance but not format details (e.g., string shape), so it falls just short of fully compensating for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb (Shows), resource (talent catalog profile), and cardinality/scope (one, by id), which clearly separates it from the list-style siblings. It references 'search' rather than naming the exact sibling 'search_talent', so the differentiation is slightly weaker than it could be.

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 phrase 'by the id that search returned' implies the intended workflow (call search first, then fetch a specific profile) but never states when to prefer this over search_talent or what to do if the id is unknown. Usage is implied rather than explicitly prescribed, and no exclusions are given.

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