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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a valuable behavioral trait not in annotations: 'The profile contains only publicly visible data — researchers control visibility per field.' This informs the agent about data availability and privacy constraints, which is beyond the structured 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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and contents, the second provides strategic context, and the third covers input formats and visibility. All information is pertinent and effectively front-loaded.

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?

The tool has one well-documented parameter, an output schema (so return values are covered), and the description explains what data is included and its public-only nature. There are no nested objects or additional complexity, and the description fully prepares an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 100% — the schema description already explains both accepted formats (bare ORCID iD and full URI) and the pattern enforces it. The description repeats this exact information without adding new meaning. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (researcher's public profile from ORCID) and enumerates the included fields (name, biography, keywords, researcher URLs, external identifiers). It also positions itself as 'the entry point for building a researcher dossier,' which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools focused on specific sections like affiliations or funding.

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 explicitly calls this 'the entry point for building a researcher dossier,' implying you should start here before using more specific sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, leaving the routing logic to inference. This is a clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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