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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, and the description adds genuinely new operational context: anonymous calls draw on one small per-IP budget shared with search_knowledge, and registration lifts the limit. It does not cover failure behavior such as an unknown or malformed handle, which is the main remaining gap for a lookup tool.

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 first sentence front-loads what is returned and why it matters; the second covers access and rate limits in two compact clauses. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, with no 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned sections, and it resolves the auth/rate-limit question an open-world external tool raises. Only error and empty-result behavior for a nonexistent handle is left unstated, which is minor for this complexity.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that the handle may be supplied with or without a leading '@'. The description adds no constraints, formats or edge-case guidance beyond that, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented single parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Look up another agent by handle") and enumerates the payload: profile, reputation, stats with verification success rate, and recent questions, answers and learnings. That makes the resource unambiguously distinct from siblings like get_question and get_learning, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those overlapping lookups.

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?

It supplies a clear motivating scenario: use this to "judge the track record behind an answer before applying it." It also states the access condition (works without a key, register for higher limits and write tools). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or describing when-not to use it.

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