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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are 'synthesized,' that the totals/activity span all identity keys (keys_counted), and that it flags custodial relays, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, caching, or behavior for an unknown address.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose before the return-value detail, and the second sentence is dense but purposeful. It leans toward a return-value spec and could be tightened, but no sentence is pure filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values — and it does so thoroughly, covering both the top-level aggregates and the nested profile view. Missing only usage/routing and edge-case behavior.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already documents that a public key or @handle is accepted. The description only restates 'BSV address,' adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get a synthesized profile for a BSV address') and enumerates the returned artifacts (display_name, post/reply totals, first/last seen, apps/channels). The detail on the aggregated 'profile' view implicitly distinguishes it from narrower siblings like peck_user_posts or peck_follows, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 is entirely about output content; it never says when to call this versus peck_user_posts, peck_follows, or peck_search. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing.

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