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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by naming the returned field set, stating that current tasks are included, and guaranteeing that app tokens and password hashes are never returned. It also discloses the underlying call (POST /v2/view_fleet_profile), which usefully explains why a read operation is a POST. Return shape for tasks is not described.

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 tight sentences: the payload/field list comes first, the security guarantee second, the endpoint last. No filler sentences and nothing redundant with the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating returned fields and disclosing the excluded sensitive fields, which is what an agent needs for this one-parameter read. Minor gap: the structure/format of the 'current tasks' list and units for rating are unspecified.

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% and the single parameter fleet_id is already documented as 'Agent id (fleet_id from tookan_list_agents)', including its origin. The description adds no further semantics about the id, 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?

Specific verb+resource: fetches a single agent's profile and enumerates exactly which fields come back (name, email, phone, tags, transport, location, rating, active state) plus current tasks. "One agent's profile" implicitly contrasts with the list-style sibling tookan_list_agents, but no sibling is named 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?

Usage is only implied: needing details or current tasks for one known agent. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over tookan_list_agents or tookan_get_agent_location; the alternative routing hint ('fleet_id from tookan_list_agents') lives in the schema, not the description.

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