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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. What it does add is genuinely non-structured information: a cost of 1 credit and the exact shape of the returned profile (display name, bio, avatar, all outbound links in order), which matters since there is no output schema. It still omits failure behavior, e.g. what happens with a private/missing page or when credits run out.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the substantive content (what the page returns) is front-loaded ahead of the credit note. The opening 'Komi page.' is a wasted clause that duplicates the title and could be dropped.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema fetch, the description covers the return contents and cost well and the annotations cover the read-only nature. The gaps are the undocumented cache_max_age parameter and any statement about error or credit-exhaustion outcomes.

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 only 50%, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It says nothing about either parameter: the url format is already documented in the schema, and cache_max_age is completely undocumented in both places, leaving its unit, format, and default unknown.

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 second sentence is specific: it names the resource (a public Komi creator profile) and enumerates the payload (display name, bio, avatar, outbound links in order). The leading 'Komi page.' merely restates the tool name and title, and it never distinguishes this from the many sibling link-in-bio tools (linktree_page, linkbio_page, taplink_page, solo_page, pillar_page, linkme_page, milkshake_page).

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 implied rather than stated: the schema's url example (https://komi.io/<username>) makes the trigger obvious, but the description gives no explicit 'use this when...' rule and names no alternative. An agent must infer from the platform name that this is the right sibling among the seven link-in-bio tools.

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