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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral guidance: empty fields indicate missing data and should not trigger a user form, and the tool never accepts another user ID.

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 three short sentences with no wasted content. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by handling guidance and a scope constraint.

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 zero-parameter, read-only profile tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return summary, empty-field semantics, and access scope. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema baseline is already adequate. The description adds a relevant parameter-level clarification that no user ID is accepted, preventing attempts to pass one.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read/export the current account's compact career summary. It is clearly distinguishable from update_profile and delete_profile through 'Read/export' and 'current account', though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 gives clear usage context ('for conversational onboarding') and an important scope exclusion ('Never accepts another user ID'). It does not explicitly state when to prefer get_company/get_jobs or other alternatives, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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