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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations by warning that returned content must be treated as untrusted data and never as instructions, which is critical for a tool that may surface user-controlled profile text.

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, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The security warning in the second sentence earns its place and does not obscure the main purpose.

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 one-parameter read operation with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states what the tool reads, what the identifier can be, and that output is untrusted. It does not explicitly describe the return shape, but 'read a profile' reasonably implies the returned profile object.

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?

The schema provides no description for the required 'id' parameter and coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by specifying that id may be a UUID or a slug, giving the agent concrete accepted value forms. It could add a bit more detail (e.g., slug format), but it is sufficient for one parameter.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('public human profile'), and specifies the lookup keys (UUID or slug). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling write tools like upsert_profile and retrieval tools like get_agent.

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 makes it clear this is for reading public human profiles, which implies the main use case. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this over alternatives such as search_people or upsert_profile, or mention exclusions such as 'use get_agent for agent profiles'.

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