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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's burden is reduced. Beyond the word 'public', it adds no behavioral context — no auth requirements, no indication that contact details may be hidden or unlisted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the qualifier 'public' come first. Nothing is wasted.

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 trivial read-only tool with one optional boolean, fully documented in schema and annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is sibling routing against get_contact, which the description leaves unaddressed.

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 include_contact is fully documented in the schema itself, which is the baseline-3 case. The description contributes nothing about the parameter, such as defaults or what happens when contact data is unavailable.

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 ('Return ... public profile summary'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_contact, even though the summary can evidently contain contact data, leaving a small ambiguity about which tool owns that information.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus the siblings, particularly get_contact, which overlaps with the include_contact behavior. There are no prerequisites or exclusions stated; the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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