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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Look up' language is consistent with them. It adds meaningful context by disclosing both accepted identifier forms and the scope of the returned profile, although it does not cover error behavior. No annotation contradiction.

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 no filler: purpose, accepted inputs, and returned data. The most important disambiguation (which identifiers are valid) is front-loaded and every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 single-parameter lookup with read-only/idempotent annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough detail to invoke the tool correctly: what to pass and what to expect back. No missing fields or workflow information is needed for a first call.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for `provider_id`. It explains that the parameter may hold either a Tewdy UUID from search_providers' `id` or a tewdyTag handle, gives an example, and specifies that the handle appears as `tewdyTag`. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 ('Look up'), a clear resource ('full public profile for a Tewdy provider'), and enumerates the returned fields. It also names the sibling search_providers as the source of identifiers, so an agent can tell it apart from the search/list tools.

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?

Gives concrete input context: the tool accepts either the Tewdy UUID returned as `id` by search_providers or a tewdyTag handle, with an example. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use it versus siblings, but the guidance to source identifiers from search_providers is actionable and implies the intended workflow.

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