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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (name, city, summary, links) and language behavior, but it does not explicitly state that this is a safe read-only operation or describe output formatting or errors. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, stating the profile contents first and then usage notes. The bilingual repetition adds some redundancy but is arguably useful for multilingual agents. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields: name, city, summary, and links. It also covers language selection and positions the tool as the starting point. It does not describe error cases or edge conditions, but for a simple profile tool the provided context is largely sufficient.

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 both parameters. The description adds the lang default behavior (ru) and implies the candidate slug concept, but mostly repeats what the schema already provides. No significant new parameter meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a candidate profile overview listing name, city, summary, and links. It differentiates itself from siblings like get_resume and get_contacts by enumerating specific profile contents, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase 'Start your acquaintance here' provides clear entry-point context, and it specifies the language default behavior (ru by default or en). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for a simple profile lookup.

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