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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — private co-ops fail, private land/members/evidence/financial records are never returned, and results are self-reported community text plus a source receipt and page URL. That last clause is important framing because it tells the agent the content is unverified community prose.

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, front-loaded with the use case, followed by exclusions, then return contents. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing repeats the schema or annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description takes on the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the profile fields and the receipt/page extras. Combined with the private-data exclusion and error behavior, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load, and it does reasonably: it identifies the parameter as the co-op's UUID and points to list_public_coops as the place to obtain one. It does not restate the uuid format or say what happens with a malformed or non-existent id, so it stops just short of fully compensating.

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 and resource — fetch the full public profile of a co-op by UUID — and explicitly carves itself apart from the sibling list_public_coops by naming it as the source of the UUID rather than a search tool. The agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any schema.

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 an explicit precondition (you already have the UUID, e.g. from list_public_coops) and explicit exclusions: do not use for name-based search and do not use for private co-ops, which return an error. Both the positive case and the two anti-cases are spelled out.

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