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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and open-world scope are covered. The description adds that only public profiles are searched and which fields match, which is modest extra context. It discloses nothing further about result ordering, matching behavior, or authentication needs.

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 with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the routing hint follows immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to convey purpose, scope and routing, which it does. Pagination awareness is signaled via the cursor parameter in the schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so q, limit and cursor are already documented in the schema. The description implies the query text matches name/handle/description but adds no syntax, format, or matching-operator detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Search) plus precise resource (public Bluesky actor profiles) and the searched fields (display name, handle, profile-description text). It explicitly distinguishes itself from post-searching siblings with 'it searches accounts rather than posts.' An agent can differentiate it from bluesky_posts/bluesky_profile without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly states when to use it ('when you know a person or organization name but not its handle') and draws a boundary against post search. It stops short of naming the alternative tool(s) explicitly, but the account-vs-post framing gives usable routing guidance.

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