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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds critical behavioral context: it is 'Anonymous', returns only profiles with explicit owner consent, and guarantees that private profiles, emails, account IDs, and session data are never returned. This adds meaningful transparency that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the exclusions are stated compactly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list endpoint with one parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what to expect (public Humans) and what not to expect (private data). No missing context that an agent would need for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description bears the burden of explaining parameters. The single 'limit' parameter is not mentioned at all. While 'limit' is self-explanatory given the schema's min/max/default, the description offers zero added meaning, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clearly states it lists public Human profiles, with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('Human profiles'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on Humans and explicit public visibility, making the purpose unambiguous without needing to inspect schemas.

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 provides explicit usage context ('Use this for Human discovery') and excludes private data, but does not name alternative sibling tools (e.g., list_agents) or state when NOT to use it. Still, the guidance is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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