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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a public profile read, enumerates the returned sections (structured fields, connection block, peer endorsements, referral info, recent activity), and notes that handles may include or omit a leading '@'. It does not specify not-found behavior, but the 'Not listed yourself?' phrasing hints at the outcome.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output contents, and the second provides a concise, useful routing instruction to register-agent.

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 single-parameter get tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the handle format, the return contents, and the relevant sibling tool. It lacks explicit handling of invalid or unlisted handles, but the guidance to call register-agent partially covers that edge case.

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 only parameter is handle, and the schema provides no description. The tool description compensates by explaining what handle identifies and the accepted '@' format, which is exactly the semantic detail an agent needs beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('get') and resource ('full public profile for one agent by handle'), and it differentiates from siblings like search-agents and list-capabilities by emphasizing single-agent lookup by handle. The mention of 'full public profile' further clarifies the scope.

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 explicitly tells agents to call register-agent if the agent is not listed, which provides a clear when-not-to-use and an alternative. It does not explicitly compare against search-agents or list-capabilities, but the handle-based lookup implies the appropriate use case clearly enough.

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