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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by describing the response shape (a ready-to-present card plus underlying data), which matters because there is no output schema. It is not exhaustive about the 'underlying data' portion, but the key behavioral expectation is disclosed.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the routing trigger first, the return contents second, the presentation instruction last. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers trigger, returned content, and how to present results — enough for correct invocation. The only soft spot is the vague 'plus the underlying data', which leaves the non-card payload undefined.

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?

The single 'handle' parameter has 100% schema description coverage including example formats ('par' vs 'Pär Fagerberg'), so the schema does the work. The description never mentions the parameter and adds no meaning such as fallback behavior when a name is ambiguous — baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 (retrieves a candidate profile), enumerates the returned card fields (name, headline, current role, experience, evidence, work, quote), and positions itself as the entry point ('start here whenever someone asks who a candidate is'), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_portfolio, get_project, or search_people.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('whenever someone asks who a candidate is') plus a presentation protocol (show the card, then add one short question-relevant paragraph). It does not name an alternative or state when NOT to use it (e.g., when only a handle is unknown and search_people is needed), which keeps it just 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.