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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is supplemental — and it delivers meaningfully by flagging that returned data includes `limits` because GigNGo runs no background checks and badges are self-reported. That trust caveat is real behavioral context an agent would otherwise miss; it omits any note about missing/deleted profiles or rate limits.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the second sentence's field inventory substitutes for the absent output schema, so most of its length is earned. The enumeration is dense and could be grouped more tightly, but no sentence is redundant.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what is fetched, how to obtain the key, what comes back, and the safety caveat on that data. Nothing required to call or interpret it correctly 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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description adds value beyond the schema's format example by naming concrete sources for the slug value. It does not discuss slug validity, case sensitivity, or fallback behavior, so it modestly exceeds the schema rather than fully enriching it.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Get the public profile of one GigNGo local by their profile slug") plus the exact lookup key and scope. It is clearly distinct from sibling search_local_workers, which finds slugs rather than resolving one.

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?

The description tells the agent where valid slugs come from — search_local_workers results or gigngo.org/worker-profile/{slug} URLs — which implicitly establishes the lookup-then-fetch workflow with its sibling. It does not state explicit when-not conditions or error behavior for unknown slugs, so it stops short of a 5.

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