logr

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the search covers 'public' profiles and that it returns handles, which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose details like search ranking, match type, or any limitations (e.g., pagination). Since the annotation covers the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence states the search scope and fields; a second sentence explains the output's purpose. There is no fluff or repetition of schema information. The description earns every word.

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 read-only search tool with a small parameter set and an output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the searchable fields, the public scope, and the intended downstream use (handles for other tools). Since an output schema exists, there is no need to enumerate return fields. The sibling context is provided, and no critical gaps remain.

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 50% (query has a description, limit does not). The description compensates by clarifying that the query parameter can match 'name, handle, bio, or location,' expanding on the schema's 'Name, handle, or free-text match.' It does not explain limit, but that parameter is self-explanatory with min/max constraints. Overall, the description adds meaningful semantics to the key parameter.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Search public logr profiles by name, handle, bio, or location.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search_events (which searches events) and get_profile (which fetches a specific profile). The phrase 'Returns handles to use with the other tools' further clarifies its role as a discovery tool.

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 when to use the tool: to discover profile handles before using other tools ('Returns handles to use with the other tools'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use search_events for events'), but the resource type 'profiles' makes the intended context clear. The sibling tool list helps reinforce this.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the output is Markdown and includes sources, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like error handling or permissions. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key content types and resource equivalence. Every word contributes without unnecessary detail.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully conveys what the agent needs: what resource is accessed, the output format (Markdown), and the content included. The URI equivalence adds helpful context.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter (username) with type, length constraints, and an example, so the description need not add more. The baseline of 3 applies since schema coverage is 100%.

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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving complete Markdown context for a profile, listing specific content (identity, about, full timeline with sources). It also distinguishes it from other tools by referencing the equivalent logr:// resource, making its scope 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?

The description mentions a use case ('for clients that prefer tools') and its equivalence to a URI resource, but it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like get_profile or get_timeline, nor does it state when not to use it. Guidelines are implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the response includes the full event and its media URLs. It doesn't mention error behavior, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's core purpose and key output detail.

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 get tool with an output schema and readOnly annotation, the description covers the purpose and main output. However, it lacks guidance on id semantics and explicit usage alternatives, leaving a modest gap.

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 input schema describes username but leaves id undocumented. The tool description does not clarify what id represents or how it relates to other tools, and with 50% schema coverage the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 clearly states the tool returns a single timeline event with full details, including media URLs. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_timeline (likely multiple events) and search_events.

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 use case is implied by the word 'One' (single event vs. timeline of events), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds context about the nature of the data (who they are, doing now, socials, timeline stats) but does not disclose deeper behaviors like pagination or data freshness, which is acceptable given the read-only annotation and output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's output without wasted words. The metaphor 'identity card' is concise and memorable.

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 tool with a single parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the key output categories adequately. It does not explicitly mention input requirements, but the schema handles that, so the description is complete enough.

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 input schema fully documents the username parameter with type, length constraints, and an example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies given the 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly defines the tool's purpose as retrieving a profile's identity card, including current activity, socials, and timeline stats. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_profiles (search) and get_timeline (timeline-specific) by focusing on the aggregate profile view.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_profiles or get_context. It lacks explicit usage context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, so the description adds the useful behavioral detail of newest-first ordering and the supported filter dimensions. It does not mention pagination behavior, but this is a minor gap given the read-only annotation and output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and key filters without redundancy. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the read-only annotation and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned, ordering, and optional filters. It does not specify default pagination or empty-result behavior, but the schema and output schema fill some of that gap.

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 57%, with tag, pinned, featured, and username already described in the schema. The description adds context by grouping tag, year, featured, and pinned as filters, but it does not mention limit or offset, leaving those parameters to their self-explanatory names.

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 clearly states the tool returns a profile's timeline events newest first, with optional filters for tag, year, featured, or pinned. This specific scope distinguishes it from siblings like get_event (single event) and search_events (search across profiles).

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 by listing filter options, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool is referenced, leaving the choice to the agent's inference.

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

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true; the description adds behavioral nuance with 'All terms must match' and 'Plain text matching' and scopes the search to specific fields, going beyond annotation data. It doesn't contradict 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no redundant language. 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?

Output schema handles return details; the description covers search scope, matching behavior, and field coverage. It omits pagination or ordering details, but that is not critical given the output schema and tool's simplicity.

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 covers only username (33%); description clarifies query semantics (keyword, all terms match, fields searched) but leaves limit unspecified, which is standard and inferable from the parameter name. It partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 ('search') and resource ('a profile's timeline'), names searchable fields (title, body, tags), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying matching semantics ('all terms must match'). It clearly identifies the tool's scope and behavior.

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 clearly identifies the use case (keyword search within a profile) and sets expectations ('plain text matching — no semantic search'), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. This is implied through sibling context (e.g., get_timeline for full list) but not explicitly stated.

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