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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scope beyond that: it discloses the returned shape (profile fields) and that only 'one page' of the contributor's articles comes back, which is real behavioral context. It doesn't cover pagination limits or rate/ordering behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the two alternative routings. Every sentence 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 return values need not be detailed, and all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description covers purpose, scope, and sibling routing, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 the schema already documents url, page, and slug. The description only echoes the paged nature of the article list ('one page'), adding no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 ('Fetch') plus a precisely scoped resource ('one GQ contributor's public profile'), and it enumerates the returned fields (name, biography, headshot, social links, recent articles). It explicitly distinguishes itself from gq_article and gq_headlines, so an agent can disambiguate 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?

Names two alternatives with the condition that selects each: gq_article 'for one story's content' and gq_headlines 'for current outlet feeds.' That is clear routing guidance, though it doesn't address every nearby sibling (gq_news, gq_sections) or state a positive 'use this when' trigger beyond the profile-fetch intent.

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