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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering safety and open-world nature. The description adds that it's a public profile with specific fields, which is useful but doesn't disclose rate limits, auth, or caching behavior. A 3.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the resource, zero wasted words. 5.

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 1-param tool with an output schema, the description covers returned fields but omits what the required url points to. The output schema handles return values; the main gap is input identification. 3.

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 has one required url parameter with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain that url should be the author's profile URL (as opposed to an article URL), so it fails to compensate for the schema gap. Score 2.

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 it returns one Mint author's public profile and lists the fields (name, job title, headshot, biography, social links). The verb is implicit but the resource is specific. It does not name sibling tools, so 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus livemint_article or other sibling tools, no prerequisites or input expectations. Implied usage from name only, so 2.

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