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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does useful work by disclosing the shape of the returned profile (counts, appearance range, co-occurrence, typical episodes), but it says nothing about lookup failure behavior, ambiguous-name handling, or whether results are cached/paginated.

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 sentences, zero filler: the first front-loads what the profile contains, the second handles the input-language ambiguity. Nothing is repeated from the schema or restated from the title.

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?

Low-complexity tool with two parameters and no output schema, and the description does explain what comes back, which is the main gap it needed to fill. It could be stronger by covering not-found or ambiguous-name behavior, but for a simple read lookup it is essentially complete.

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 only 50%, and the undocumented parameter is the required `name`. The description compensates well by stating the name may be in any language and giving concrete examples in Japanese, romaji, and Chinese characters, which resolves real ambiguity in how to supply the value. The `locale` parameter is already documented in the schema, so no further credit is needed there.

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 a specific resource (a character's profile in the catalog) and enumerates the payload fields: post count, first/latest appearance, most frequent co-appearances, and typical episodes. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_episode or get_arc, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from them, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. use get_episode for episode-level detail), and no statement about preconditions or what happens if the character is unknown. The only usage-adjacent hint is that names are accepted in any language, which is really parameter semantics rather than tool selection.

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