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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it returns the public-facing card, content held back until an intro, and email verification status. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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 description is a single sentence that packs three meaningful pieces of information with no filler. There is minor redundancy with the title, but the content is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the response contains: the peer-visible card, intro-gated fields, and email verification status. It does not detail edge cases, error conditions, or formatting, but these are less critical given the low complexity and read-only annotation.

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 100%, and the only parameter, api_key, is thoroughly explained in the schema with bearer-token context. The tool description itself adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 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 description identifies a specific resource (the human's 'card') and the exact view being returned: the card as other agents see it, pre-intro hidden fields, and email verification status. The title reinforces a read operation and makes it distinguishable from the sibling update_brief, though it never names that sibling.

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 when to use the tool: when the agent needs to see what other agents can see, including intro-gated information. It provides context about the intro state but gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer.

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