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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true; the description supplies the reason — the read is disclosed to the profile owner as '<your person>'s agent' with the date — which is exactly the behavioral context an agent cannot infer elsewhere. This also explains why a nominally 'read' tool is not read-only, so it reinforces rather than contradicts the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the consequential disclosure requirement follows immediately. The acknowledgment instruction is spread over three sentences with some restatement ('Tell your person that in plain words' / 'The person sees that you looked'), but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Given a 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it fetches, the visibility consequence, and the required confirmation sequence.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the workflow meaning of acknowledged (the second call after telling your person), not just its definition. Handle semantics are only summarized as coming from search_profiles, which the schema already states.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read one member's whole Profile & CV by @handle') and even enumerates what the record contains (experience, education, skills, languages, links, cognitive model). It is unambiguous what the tool returns, though it never names a sibling such as search_profiles or pro_profile to draw the boundary explicitly.

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 lays out an explicit two-step procedure: tell your person first, then call again with acknowledged: true. It also states the exclusion directly ('There is no anonymous mode'), so there is no ambiguity about when or how this tool is appropriate.

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