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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the underlying endpoint (GET /profiles/{path}) and the fact that the path accepts either a slug or a uuid as a string, which tells the agent both identifier forms are valid. It stops short of describing not-found or auth behavior, keeping it out of the top score.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, identifier semantics, endpoint, and return envelope. The key information (slug-or-uuid) is front-loaded and nothing is padding.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the endpoint and the return envelope shape ({ data:{...} }), which is exactly the missing piece. It does not cover failure modes such as an unknown path, but the core call path is complete.

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 single 'path' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's clarification that it is 'a string either way' reinforces but does not extend the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single fundraising profile'), and the word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the raisely_list_profiles sibling. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the list-vs-single split, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it when you have a profile path or uuid and want one record. There is no statement of when to prefer this over raisely_list_profiles or raisely_request, and no mention of prerequisites or error conditions.

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