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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that aggregation happens MCP-side and that a custodial-relay flag is appended, which adds useful context. Yet it does not explicitly state read-only guarantees, caching/freshness behavior, or error handling for unknown addresses.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then efficiently lists profile contents and an implementation note. Every clause contributes information with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given a single parameter and no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the main profile fields and the custodial-relay flag. It omits value types or behavior for unknown/empty addresses, but for this low-complexity shape it is largely sufficient.

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?

The schema already documents the single parameter as 'BSV address to profile' with 100% coverage, and the description repeats the same concept without adding address format, validation, or resolution details. This is the baseline case where the schema carries the semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('synthesized profile for a BSV address') and enumerates the exact payload contents: display_name, total posts/replies, first/last seen timestamps, active apps + channels, and custodial-relay flag. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like peck_feed and peck_user_posts.

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 gives clear context by noting the profile is aggregated from /v1/feed and that no profile endpoint is needed, implying this is the tool for a high-level summary rather than raw data. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or states when not to use this tool, so usage guidance is contextual but not fully exclusionary.

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