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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the data is 'full public' profile content, implying no auth is needed and what scope of data is returned, but says nothing about lookup behavior, error cases, or how the actor is resolved.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field list is efficient and the resource identity comes first. Slightly list-heavy but every element 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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and the annotation covers safety. However, for a lookup tool the critical missing piece is how to supply the required 'actor' argument, which neither schema nor description clarifies.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for the single 'actor' parameter, yet it never mentions it. It gives no indication whether 'actor' expects a handle (e.g. @name.bsky.social), a DID, or another identifier, which is a meaningful gap for a 1-param lookup tool.

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 names the specific resource (a Bluesky account's public profile) and enumerates the returned fields (display name, description, images, follower/follows/posts counts), so an agent can tell it returns profile data. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like bluesky_followers or bluesky_follows, keeping it at a 4.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many bluesky_* siblings that all operate on an actor (followers, follows, posts, author_feed), the absence of routing guidance leaves the agent to infer the choice purely from names.

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