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

The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it returns nothing for unpublished handles and explicitly instructs the agent not to guess. This is a critical operational detail not captured in the readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations. It also clarifies that the returned data is 'what that person has chosen to publish,' setting expectations for data scope.

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 three concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage trigger, and edge-case handling. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, uses no unnecessary words, and reads clearly.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with output schema present, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and the not-found behavior. No critical gaps remain, and the provided output schema (indicated as present) would handle return structure details.

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 input schema already provides full documentation for the handle parameter, including examples and format ('with or without the @'). The description merely restates 'by its handle' without adding new semantic details. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; neither the schema nor description needs extra help.

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 states the tool 'Looks up a published Skillfolio profile by its handle' and lists the specific content returned (headline, summary, experience, skills, interview answers). It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose relative to siblings like show_example_profile, which likely focuses on a demo profile.

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 provides an explicit usage trigger: 'Use when someone mentions a skillfolio.studio/@handle link or asks about a specific person’s profile.' It also includes a caution about not guessing when the handle is not published. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it relative to other sibling tools, 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.