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

The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by framing the operation as a lookup. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also adds little behavioral context beyond what the annotations and the simple verb already convey, such as return shape or additional constraints.

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 a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word 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 simple read-only lookup with one required parameter, the description and schema provide enough to invoke the tool correctly. The lack of an output schema makes return details unspecified, but that is not critical for a profile lookup, though a brief mention of what the profile contains would improve completeness.

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%, with the address parameter described as 'Maker address' and the params object described as optional raw JSON. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents all parameters adequately.

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 ('Look up') and a specific resource ('a maker profile on Peerlytics'), making the tool's core function clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like peer_market_maker_history or peer_market_explorer_search, but the term 'profile' conveys a current snapshot rather than history or search results.

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 implies usage: use this tool when you need a maker profile for a given address. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools are better suited for related needs, such as maker history or broader explorer searches.

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